Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Is $1 Million Enough to Cover the Average American's Expenses in Retirement?
"Try to live healthy and well and spend less than you earn or take in. The big gotcha which has destroyed many a well thought out or best laid plan are those unexpected healthcare bombs. It'll never happen to any of us, until it does."
Great wisdom there. We try and do all of that, and also maintain policy coverage for extended healthcare / senility storage. I hope that I can figure out how to self-terminate before using that coverage, though.
Hank, what you and icyone added is really the guts of this discussion. Try to live healthy and well and spend less than you earn or take in. The big gotcha which has destroyed many a well thought out or best laid plan are those unexpected healthcare bombs. It'll never happen to any of us, until it does. From personal experiences - many a friend who thought they had it all figured out don't even know what 'it' was anymore because of Alzhiemers and/or dementia. Coming soon to a boomer near you.
Thanks for the Bay Bridge update. Obviously I knew nothing about its status or current crop of deficiencies. The bridge doesn't impact me whatsoever. The repair list is disappointingly long.
I'm sure these problems will all be addressed and be successfully resolved. Ultimately, we set things right. I would hope that politics did not influence the bridge contract awards, but that is not likely to be the case. Too bad.
But our exchange did not center on bridge construction. Its center piece was retirement planning. The retirement planning industry has advanced by huge leaps in the past two decades. Good for them and good for future retirees. Part of that advancement can be attributed to improved computational tools like Monte Carlo.
As mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, Flexible Retirement Planner is one such organization with superior tools. I finally got my kids to use it.
I hope we can continue discussions on the friendly basis that ended this exchange. Life is far too short for guttersniping. Comments are better directed at the message, and not the messenger.
"The planned Bay Bridge section will be a huge success and will be a lasting example of American engineering expertise for a century or more."
[Timeline of problems/costs in 2015, as opposed to those found and paid for in 2013]
Unfortunately, subscription to the Chronicle is required for these articles, so I haven't provided linkage. If you are interested I suspect that corroborating information is available on the internet.
SFGate is pretty good at providing access to Chron articles.
No, no! Your brief concession that you knew nothing about its status doesn’t answer the muster call. It didn’t sound the trumpet; it was barely a whisper. Apparently you posted that without reading it yourself. Given its unsuitable character, I suspect you yourself never did even casually examine it. That’s shamefully dishonest.
Your creditability is shot; it is done and it is your own doing. Based on this present experience, any checking of your references is a grand time sinkhole. I will not play that wasteful game. Please don’t bother to now search for seemingly applicable counter references. You would be wasting your precious time.
Your very own words, MJG. How do they feel on the receiving end? Does this perhaps give you a clue as to why some of us don't care for your "style"? Can you possibly be so obtuse as to not see that you apply a very different standard to yourself compared to what you demand from others? We are "guttersnipers", you of course are merely "a happy warrior" gently adjudicating from a position of ineffable authority.
"Comments are better directed at the message, and not the messenger."
Well I guess I was wrong again with my overly optimistic hope that a Zebra would change its stripes. In your case, I suppose that will never happen.
Yes, I did send a truculent reply to a feeble response on my Broken Window submittal. In that tepid response, the sender admitted that his comments just might be off target with “point taken, thanks; I will try to respond with something thoughtful…. “. I thought that was an vague admission, and my heated posting followed. The issue was dead until you just referenced it.
You only posted selected parts of my posting. Here is the entirety of it:
“No, no! Your brief concession that you touted an inappropriate Broken Window reference doesn’t answer the muster call. It didn’t sound the trumpet; it was barely a whisper.
In your reply posting on this matter you predicted that I would not even read your reference. Well you were wrong; I did.
Apparently you posted that Link without reading it yourself. The very first paragraph in your referenced article clearly identifies it as a social policing initiative, and not one that addresses economic theory issues.
In your initial response to me you said : “This entry is thorough, if you're genuinely interested in the complex subject, which somehow I bet is not really the case…”. Well I was "genuinely" interested enough to access your article. Given its unsuitable character, I suspect you yourself never did even casually examine it. That’s shamefully dishonest.
Your creditability is shot; it is done and it is your own doing. Based on this present experience, any checking of your references is a grand time sinkhole. I will not play that wasteful game. Please don’t bother to now search for seemingly applicable counter references. You would be wasting your precious time.
I am not a devoted Austrian economics conscript. I am also not a committed Keynesian follower. Both economic schools have something to offer, but are circumstance dependent. Both are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Krugman is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Economics is not a hard science. What worked economically yesterday might be a complete failure today.
I never intended to get embroiled in an economic theory food fight here. It’s sloppy slogging, and surely will not be fully explored on a website designed to exchange mutual fund data and ideas. My contribution to this food fight ends now.
Apparently, other MFOers are prepared to pickup the gauntlet. Good luck to all. This debate has little chance of any meaningful resolution.”
That’s the end of my submittal. What aroused my anger most was the charge that I would not read the included reference and that I was not genuinely interested. I did and I was.
For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why? I have visited New York city and Baltimore more recently, and still never consider reading the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
At the time of your original posting that introduced the Bay Bridge example, you did not provide references relative to its many problems, or even to hint at them. Later you do.
Indeed, I have high publishing standards. I do fact-check most, but not all, of what I quote in my informational sections. I try to clearly delineate between my opinions and the general information that I provide. If inadvertent errors are made in the general information sections, I urge folks to alert me. I will correct them. Bad stuff happens.
Sometimes my opinions run counter to others on MFO. I don’t understand why that rattles some folks as much as it does, unless they are only seeking what behaviorist call a Conformation Bias. If that’s the case, I’m the wrong guy to read. The solution is simplicity itself: just avoid my postings completely. My postings must be more dangerous to a few individual’s psyches than I intend. I’m not repentant.
"For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why?"
Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco. Remember that? It was only a few hours ago, after all.
Mostly Just Gas. Of course you're not repentant; your self-biased double-standard allows you that luxury. By the way, in contradiction to your speculation regarding "psyches" I kinda like my "Zebra stripes", and honestly don't consider you to be any sort of credible threat.
I notice that you significantly edited your original post above. I don't blame you. It was shameful.
If I am truly not a “credible threat”, I note that you invest a lot of time and energy in trying to disarm me.
Another illustration is your “Mostly Just Gas” theme that took time to invent. You now incorporate it into many of your anti-MJG submittals. No Old Joe, I see you as rating me an enemy. You continually distort my postings with juvenile, ad hominem attacks.
What could be more juvenile and ad hominem than “Mostly Just Gas”? That’s a silly acronym that has no place on a serious investing website. That’s simply a reflection of your meaningless attacking rants against me.
I would never resort to an equivalent defensive measure such as an “Only Junk” acronym. Well, maybe I just might choose this Tit for Tat counter offensive strategy. No, that’s not me!
Your ongoing belligerent declarations are baseless and resource wasteful. I suspect that many MFOers interpret them in the same way as I do. I’m satisfied that MFOers will fairly judge the relative and absolute merits of our many postings with regard to informing investment decisions. That's my main purpose in posting.
Once again, I encourage friendly, and definitely not hostile, MFO submittals that center on content and not personalities. That works for most of us. The high road is the better road. Please join the crowd.
"I notice that you significantly edited your original post above. I don't blame you. It was shameful."
Say what? I have no idea what post you're talking about, but I'm happy that it's no longer shameful. Hey there- how about a comparative invective word count, and then we can see who is mostly just gas? Talk about shameful: your "No, no!" vicious diatribe against David Moran, partially quoted above, is a classic.
"I’m satisfied that MFOers will fairly judge the relative and absolute merits of our many postings"
Sure, I'm comfortable with that! Why don't you tell us about Monte Carlo another couple of dozen times? By the way, I see no response to my answer re your question concerning the Bay Bridge. Another convenient oversight, right? Well, your self-biased double-standard allows you that luxury, so I'm not surprised.
You asked and didn't like my analyses outcomes. I didn't give you the confirmation encouragement that you were seeking. I certainly am not trying to dissuade you from your decision. I'm simply reporting the results of very few calculations.
It's not that I don't like it - it is that it isn't the appropriate analyses for the scenario I gave. That is a key point.
But what you did do points out one big weakness in the simulator you used - cash flow.
The analysis is a simple money flow balance usually done on an annual basis. To oversimplify, portfolio value at the beginning of the year plus annual incomes plus/minus portfolio returns minus total expenditures equates to an end balance. It is a money balancing equation done yearly. If the bottom line goes negative, the portfolio does not survive.
But let's assume you are right. Adding another constraint to the global money balance (what you termed cash flow) will only lower portfolio survival probabilities. My second 6 set of simulations included your entire resources and represents a maximum survival rate likelihood. Any other money transfers within those resources will only contribute to failure. Sorry, but that is the analyses outcome.
Bad mouthing Monte Carlo simulations is fruitless and a Loser's game. Monte Carlo tools have been developed by Nobel quality researchers like Bill Sharpe for two decades and by nuclear designers for about eight decades. It is a time tested and verified tool. Certainly some codes are better than others. I like the Flexible Retirement Planner tool that I referenced earlier.
Please do not elect to swim against the tide. More progress will made going with the now accepted flow. Your reluctance to do so speaks volumes.
To refresh your memory, your initial post that was time stamped 12:14 PM only contained three words: "Mostly Just Gas". It was that silly, childish acronym that I referred to with my "shameful" characterization. Your memory is highly selective.
Thanks, MJG, you're right, I'd forgotten that I used that original short post as an editing space for the present post, which I'm pleased to hear is no longer shameful. Any response to my answer re your question concerning the Bay Bridge?
I did reply earlier about the Bay Bridge issues. My reply is further up on this page. It starts by thanking you for the update. Perhaps you missed it. I had, and do not now have, any specific insights to the Bay Bridge problem set.
My reply did not reflect any special insights into the bridge construction. I am not a bridge design expert. My engineering specialty was hyper velocity reentry aerodynamics and thermodynamics.
My comments represented general "good practice" engineering policy, especially after that Tacoma bridge collapse. Today, aerodynamic loading analysis is standard practice for tall buildings and bridges. It was not always that way during my career. We're all getting better at things we do. That's one reason why Alpha is a disappearing quantity in the mutual fund world.
No, no, MJG. You can squirm, doubletalk and evade all day long, but here's the straight facts, in correct sequence:
First, you said: "The planned Bay Bridge section will be a huge success and will be a lasting example of American engineering expertise for a century or more."
To which I replied: "it is evident that your commentary is completely divorced from reality."
Then, you said: Thanks for the Bay Bridge update. Obviously I knew nothing about its status or current crop of deficiencies.
I then noted the parallel with your "No, no!" diatribe against David Moran, in which you viciously castigated him for responding to you with insufficient accuracy.
Causing you to ask: "For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why?"
To which I answered: "Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco."
You now say that "My comments represented general "good practice" engineering policy, especially after that Tacoma bridge collapse" in a pathetic attempt to re-color your earlier comments. It's quite obvious that you are applying two completely different standards to your comments, and the comments of others.
The analysis is a simple money flow balance usually done on an annual basis. To oversimplify, portfolio value at the beginning of the year plus annual incomes plus/minus portfolio returns minus total expenditures equates to an end balance. It is a money balancing equation done yearly. If the bottom line goes negative, the portfolio does not survive.
But let's assume you are right. Adding another constraint to the global money balance (what you termed cash flow) will only lower portfolio survival probabilities. My second 6 set of simulations included your entire resources and represents a maximum survival rate likelihood. Any other money transfers within those resources will only contribute to failure. Sorry, but that is the analyses outcome.
The generalities you write about, do not apply once you are given specifics i.e. my examples in this thread.
You need to go back to my examples and understand the 4 years of expenses in near cash - understand the implications of that in the simulations and how it affects survivability.
Also, you should never be sorry when you learn something.
Comments
Great wisdom there. We try and do all of that, and also maintain policy coverage for extended healthcare / senility storage. I hope that I can figure out how to self-terminate before using that coverage, though.
Thanks for the Bay Bridge update. Obviously I knew nothing about its status or current crop of deficiencies. The bridge doesn't impact me whatsoever. The repair list is disappointingly long.
I'm sure these problems will all be addressed and be successfully resolved. Ultimately, we set things right. I would hope that politics did not influence the bridge contract awards, but that is not likely to be the case. Too bad.
But our exchange did not center on bridge construction. Its center piece was retirement planning. The retirement planning industry has advanced by huge leaps in the past two decades. Good for them and good for future retirees. Part of that advancement can be attributed to improved computational tools like Monte Carlo.
As mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, Flexible Retirement Planner is one such organization with superior tools. I finally got my kids to use it.
I hope we can continue discussions on the friendly basis that ended this exchange. Life is far too short for guttersniping. Comments are better directed at the message, and not the messenger.
Best Wishes.
Try here: http://www.sfgate.com/author/jaxon-van-derbeken/
(a list of recent articles by the reporter via SFGate), starting with the most recent (updated Monday):
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Salty-water-swamping-some-Bay-Bridge-rods-6268443.php
No, no! Your brief concession that you knew nothing about its status doesn’t answer the muster call. It didn’t sound the trumpet; it was barely a whisper. Apparently you posted that without reading it yourself. Given its unsuitable character, I suspect you yourself never did even casually examine it. That’s shamefully dishonest.
Your creditability is shot; it is done and it is your own doing. Based on this present experience, any checking of your references is a grand time sinkhole. I will not play that wasteful game. Please don’t bother to now search for seemingly applicable counter references. You would be wasting your precious time.
Your very own words, MJG. How do they feel on the receiving end? Does this perhaps give you a clue as to why some of us don't care for your "style"? Can you possibly be so obtuse as to not see that you apply a very different standard to yourself compared to what you demand from others? We are "guttersnipers", you of course are merely "a happy warrior" gently adjudicating from a position of ineffable authority.
"Comments are better directed at the message, and not the messenger."
Indeed.
Regards- OJ
Well I guess I was wrong again with my overly optimistic hope that a Zebra would change its stripes. In your case, I suppose that will never happen.
Yes, I did send a truculent reply to a feeble response on my Broken Window submittal. In that tepid response, the sender admitted that his comments just might be off target with “point taken, thanks; I will try to respond with something thoughtful…. “. I thought that was an vague admission, and my heated posting followed. The issue was dead until you just referenced it.
You only posted selected parts of my posting. Here is the entirety of it:
“No, no! Your brief concession that you touted an inappropriate Broken Window reference doesn’t answer the muster call. It didn’t sound the trumpet; it was barely a whisper.
In your reply posting on this matter you predicted that I would not even read your reference. Well you were wrong; I did.
Apparently you posted that Link without reading it yourself. The very first paragraph in your referenced article clearly identifies it as a social policing initiative, and not one that addresses economic theory issues.
In your initial response to me you said : “This entry is thorough, if you're genuinely interested in the complex subject, which somehow I bet is not really the case…”. Well I was "genuinely" interested enough to access your article. Given its unsuitable character, I suspect you yourself never did even casually examine it. That’s shamefully dishonest.
Your creditability is shot; it is done and it is your own doing. Based on this present experience, any checking of your references is a grand time sinkhole. I will not play that wasteful game. Please don’t bother to now search for seemingly applicable counter references. You would be wasting your precious time.
I am not a devoted Austrian economics conscript. I am also not a committed Keynesian follower. Both economic schools have something to offer, but are circumstance dependent. Both are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Krugman is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Economics is not a hard science. What worked economically yesterday might be a complete failure today.
I never intended to get embroiled in an economic theory food fight here. It’s sloppy slogging, and surely will not be fully explored on a website designed to exchange mutual fund data and ideas. My contribution to this food fight ends now.
Apparently, other MFOers are prepared to pickup the gauntlet. Good luck to all. This debate has little chance of any meaningful resolution.”
That’s the end of my submittal. What aroused my anger most was the charge that I would not read the included reference and that I was not genuinely interested. I did and I was.
For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why? I have visited New York city and Baltimore more recently, and still never consider reading the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
At the time of your original posting that introduced the Bay Bridge example, you did not provide references relative to its many problems, or even to hint at them. Later you do.
Indeed, I have high publishing standards. I do fact-check most, but not all, of what I quote in my informational sections. I try to clearly delineate between my opinions and the general information that I provide. If inadvertent errors are made in the general information sections, I urge folks to alert me. I will correct them. Bad stuff happens.
Sometimes my opinions run counter to others on MFO. I don’t understand why that rattles some folks as much as it does, unless they are only seeking what behaviorist call a Conformation Bias. If that’s the case, I’m the wrong guy to read. The solution is simplicity itself: just avoid my postings completely. My postings must be more dangerous to a few individual’s psyches than I intend. I’m not repentant.
Best Wishes.
Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco. Remember that? It was only a few hours ago, after all.
Mostly Just Gas. Of course you're not repentant; your self-biased double-standard allows you that luxury. By the way, in contradiction to your speculation regarding "psyches" I kinda like my "Zebra stripes", and honestly don't consider you to be any sort of credible threat.
I notice that you significantly edited your original post above. I don't blame you. It was shameful.
If I am truly not a “credible threat”, I note that you invest a lot of time and energy in trying to disarm me.
Another illustration is your “Mostly Just Gas” theme that took time to invent. You now incorporate it into many of your anti-MJG submittals. No Old Joe, I see you as rating me an enemy. You continually distort my postings with juvenile, ad hominem attacks.
What could be more juvenile and ad hominem than “Mostly Just Gas”? That’s a silly acronym that has no place on a serious investing website. That’s simply a reflection of your meaningless attacking rants against me.
I would never resort to an equivalent defensive measure such as an “Only Junk” acronym. Well, maybe I just might choose this Tit for Tat counter offensive strategy. No, that’s not me!
Your ongoing belligerent declarations are baseless and resource wasteful. I suspect that many MFOers interpret them in the same way as I do. I’m satisfied that MFOers will fairly judge the relative and absolute merits of our many postings with regard to informing investment decisions. That's my main purpose in posting.
Once again, I encourage friendly, and definitely not hostile, MFO submittals that center on content and not personalities. That works for most of us. The high road is the better road. Please join the crowd.
Best Wishes.
Say what? I have no idea what post you're talking about, but I'm happy that it's no longer shameful. Hey there- how about a comparative invective word count, and then we can see who is mostly just gas? Talk about shameful: your "No, no!" vicious diatribe against David Moran, partially quoted above, is a classic.
"I’m satisfied that MFOers will fairly judge the relative and absolute merits of our many postings"
Sure, I'm comfortable with that! Why don't you tell us about Monte Carlo another couple of dozen times? By the way, I see no response to my answer re your question concerning the Bay Bridge. Another convenient oversight, right? Well, your self-biased double-standard allows you that luxury, so I'm not surprised.
But what you did do points out one big weakness in the simulator you used - cash flow.
I believe you are wrong.
The analysis is a simple money flow balance usually done on an annual basis. To oversimplify, portfolio value at the beginning of the year plus annual incomes plus/minus portfolio returns minus total expenditures equates to an end balance. It is a money balancing equation done yearly. If the bottom line goes negative, the portfolio does not survive.
But let's assume you are right. Adding another constraint to the global money balance (what you termed cash flow) will only lower portfolio survival probabilities. My second 6 set of simulations included your entire resources and represents a maximum survival rate likelihood. Any other money transfers within those resources will only contribute to failure. Sorry, but that is the analyses outcome.
Bad mouthing Monte Carlo simulations is fruitless and a Loser's game. Monte Carlo tools have been developed by Nobel quality researchers like Bill Sharpe for two decades and by nuclear designers for about eight decades. It is a time tested and verified tool. Certainly some codes are better than others. I like the Flexible Retirement Planner tool that I referenced earlier.
Please do not elect to swim against the tide. More progress will made going with the now accepted flow. Your reluctance to do so speaks volumes.
Best Wishes.
To refresh your memory, your initial post that was time stamped 12:14 PM only contained three words: "Mostly Just Gas". It was that silly, childish acronym that I referred to with my "shameful" characterization. Your memory is highly selective.
Best Wishes.
I did reply earlier about the Bay Bridge issues. My reply is further up on this page. It starts by thanking you for the update. Perhaps you missed it. I had, and do not now have, any specific insights to the Bay Bridge problem set.
My reply did not reflect any special insights into the bridge construction. I am not a bridge design expert. My engineering specialty was hyper velocity reentry aerodynamics and thermodynamics.
My comments represented general "good practice" engineering policy, especially after that Tacoma bridge collapse. Today, aerodynamic loading analysis is standard practice for tall buildings and bridges. It was not always that way during my career. We're all getting better at things we do. That's one reason why Alpha is a disappearing quantity in the mutual fund world.
Best Wishes.
First, you said: "The planned Bay Bridge section will be a huge success and will be a lasting example of American engineering expertise for a century or more."
To which I replied: "it is evident that your commentary is completely divorced from reality."
Then, you said: Thanks for the Bay Bridge update. Obviously I knew nothing about its status or current crop of deficiencies.
I then noted the parallel with your "No, no!" diatribe against David Moran, in which you viciously castigated him for responding to you with insufficient accuracy.
Causing you to ask: "For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why?"
To which I answered: "Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco."
You now say that "My comments represented general "good practice" engineering policy, especially after that Tacoma bridge collapse" in a pathetic attempt to re-color your earlier comments. It's quite obvious that you are applying two completely different standards to your comments, and the comments of others.
You need to go back to my examples and understand the 4 years of expenses in near cash - understand the implications of that in the simulations and how it affects survivability.
Also, you should never be sorry when you learn something.
Enough said.