Should I sell my house and reinvest in fixed saving account

Albermarle

You could benefit from seeing an IFA, with a Million Pounds to 'play with' . They can also advise on tax efficient strategies as well as investments. Of course there would be a cost . Initially something between £10k to £15K probably.

ReadySteadyPop

Albermarle said:

You could benefit from seeing an IFA, with a Million Pounds to 'play with' . They can also advise on tax efficient strategies as well as investments. Of course there would be a cost . Initially something between £10k to £15K probably.

They have not yet sold the house, best to wait and see what offers they get before making plans.

mlz1413

Devil's advocate here
950,000 / 32,000 is 29.6 years. So, your wife could spread the lump sum out by taking the same amount of money from the capital each year for nearly 30 years.

But will £32k pa + interest be worth the same in 10, 20 & 29 years time.
Remember the initial money is reducing...

And at age 98 for you and 86 for wife the money is gone.

But continue renting and the income tracks annual increases. Plus you have the asset to sell any time.

House needs £50k spending to keep it nice/ legal.  Nearly 2 years income.  And will probably need that every 15 or so years. 

Also do you have family to leave your estate too?  Or are you child free and on a mission to spend, spend, spend.

Herzlos

That same argument could be used to justify selling now rather than later. 

To get an income of £32k from the £950k you'd only need to get ~3.5% return, thus paying wifes salary for no work. That should be achievable. 

What's the point of getting to 98 and having £1m in the bank?

Albermarle

mlz1413 said:

Devil's advocate here
950,000 / 32,000 is 29.6 years. So, your wife could spread the lump sum out by taking the same amount of money from the capital each year for nearly 30 years.

But will £32k pa + interest be worth the same in 10, 20 & 29 years time.
Remember the initial money is reducing...

And at age 98 for you and 86 for wife the money is gone.

But continue renting and the income tracks annual increases. Plus you have the asset to sell any time.

House needs £50k spending to keep it nice/ legal.  Nearly 2 years income.  And will probably need that every 15 or so years. 

Also do you have family to leave your estate too?  Or are you child free and on a mission to spend, spend, spend.

In retirement planning, the standard way ( or the way an IFA would go) would be to invest most of the money in a mixture of global index funds and gilts + a few smaller satellite funds . With maybe two years income kept in cash.
From historical precedent, you should be able to take an income from this of 3.5%, increasing with inflation each year. This takes into account there will be many ups and downs in the financial markets over the period. 
This should mean you would be very unlikely to run out of money even if you lived to 100. In fact there would be a very good chance of ending up with more than you started with. It is very much a safety first type strategy.
In reality you could probably 'risk' taking 4% , or maybe adjust it a little each year depending on the situation.

mlz1413

Albermarle said:

mlz1413 said:

Devil's advocate here
950,000 / 32,000 is 29.6 years. So, your wife could spread the lump sum out by taking the same amount of money from the capital each year for nearly 30 years.

But will £32k pa + interest be worth the same in 10, 20 & 29 years time.
Remember the initial money is reducing...

And at age 98 for you and 86 for wife the money is gone.

But continue renting and the income tracks annual increases. Plus you have the asset to sell any time.

House needs £50k spending to keep it nice/ legal.  Nearly 2 years income.  And will probably need that every 15 or so years. 

Also do you have family to leave your estate too?  Or are you child free and on a mission to spend, spend, spend.

In retirement planning, the standard way ( or the way an IFA would go) would be to invest most of the money in a mixture of global index funds and gilts + a few smaller satellite funds . With maybe two years income kept in cash.
From historical precedent, you should be able to take an income from this of 3.5%, increasing with inflation each year. This takes into account there will be many ups and downs in the financial markets over the period. 
This should mean you would be very unlikely to run out of money even if you lived to 100. In fact there would be a very good chance of ending up with more than you started with. It is very much a safety first type strategy.
In reality you could probably 'risk' taking 4% , or maybe adjust it a little each year depending on the situation.

But the title says to put into fixed rate savings not to invest.

Albermarle

mlz1413 said:

Albermarle said:

mlz1413 said:

Devil's advocate here
950,000 / 32,000 is 29.6 years. So, your wife could spread the lump sum out by taking the same amount of money from the capital each year for nearly 30 years.

But will £32k pa + interest be worth the same in 10, 20 & 29 years time.
Remember the initial money is reducing...

And at age 98 for you and 86 for wife the money is gone.

But continue renting and the income tracks annual increases. Plus you have the asset to sell any time.

House needs £50k spending to keep it nice/ legal.  Nearly 2 years income.  And will probably need that every 15 or so years. 

Also do you have family to leave your estate too?  Or are you child free and on a mission to spend, spend, spend.

In retirement planning, the standard way ( or the way an IFA would go) would be to invest most of the money in a mixture of global index funds and gilts + a few smaller satellite funds . With maybe two years income kept in cash.
From historical precedent, you should be able to take an income from this of 3.5%, increasing with inflation each year. This takes into account there will be many ups and downs in the financial markets over the period. 
This should mean you would be very unlikely to run out of money even if you lived to 100. In fact there would be a very good chance of ending up with more than you started with. It is very much a safety first type strategy.
In reality you could probably 'risk' taking 4% , or maybe adjust it a little each year depending on the situation.

But the title says to put into fixed rate savings not to invest.

From many posts on the Savings & Investments forum, it is clear many people say things about what they want to do, without any background knowledge or understanding of what alternative ways there might be.
So I was just explaining what a more standard retirement plan would look like, which would not to be solely having your money in savings accounts.

The OP can do what they like with the info, including ignoring it .

karate1959

I really appreciate all you taking the time to reply Thank you

Herzlos

Albermarle said:

mlz1413 said:

Albermarle said:

mlz1413 said:

Devil's advocate here
950,000 / 32,000 is 29.6 years. So, your wife could spread the lump sum out by taking the same amount of money from the capital each year for nearly 30 years.

But will £32k pa + interest be worth the same in 10, 20 & 29 years time.
Remember the initial money is reducing...

And at age 98 for you and 86 for wife the money is gone.

But continue renting and the income tracks annual increases. Plus you have the asset to sell any time.

House needs £50k spending to keep it nice/ legal.  Nearly 2 years income.  And will probably need that every 15 or so years. 

Also do you have family to leave your estate too?  Or are you child free and on a mission to spend, spend, spend.

In retirement planning, the standard way ( or the way an IFA would go) would be to invest most of the money in a mixture of global index funds and gilts + a few smaller satellite funds . With maybe two years income kept in cash.
From historical precedent, you should be able to take an income from this of 3.5%, increasing with inflation each year. This takes into account there will be many ups and downs in the financial markets over the period. 
This should mean you would be very unlikely to run out of money even if you lived to 100. In fact there would be a very good chance of ending up with more than you started with. It is very much a safety first type strategy.
In reality you could probably 'risk' taking 4% , or maybe adjust it a little each year depending on the situation.

But the title says to put into fixed rate savings not to invest.

From many posts on the Savings & Investments forum, it is clear many people say things about what they want to do, without any background knowledge or understanding of what alternative ways there might be.
So I was just explaining what a more standard retirement plan would look like, which would not to be solely having your money in savings accounts.

The OP can do what they like with the info, including ignoring it .

I think this is a solid approach, because a person asking a question has maybe gone down one route and is asking about that and people answer without considering what the end goal is. 

One example I use with work is where a farmer asks an engineer to give his jeep huge wheels to get over ditches when what he really wanted was a bridge. 

ReadySteadyPop

karate1959 said:

I really appreciate all you taking the time to reply Thank you

Is the house on the market?