# What % of your retirement spending will be from indexed income?



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

I think we can all agree that inflation is one of the major threats to a successful retirement. With that in mind, we have decided to try and max out our indexed retirement income by deferring CPP and OAS for as long as possible and spending down the investment accounts in the interim. We estimate total annual pre-tax spending to be around $70000 in todays dollars. Of that amount, we estimate that about 75% will be covered by CPP, OAS and the wife's DB pension. Should easily cover at least the necessities. Might consider indexed annuities with remaining RRSPs at age 71 to cover the remaining 25%. If we can achieve this, we could look at being a lot more aggressive investing any remaining savings...TFSAs etc...

Your thoughts?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

CPP is the only CPI-indexed income we expect. Currently modeled at 60 but need to revisit the merit of 60 vs 65 (the 'bird in the hand' from 60-65 versus the higher indexed amount at 65). We assume full OAS claw-back. Have inflation built into our future income projections such that we can live with a very conservative 1%rrr. Like you, we currenlty plan to let RRSP's run sheltered to age 71.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Our pensions go down when the government benefits kick in.

Ten years ago, we would have taken a small drop in income as we transitioned from pensions (bridge benefits etc.) into government pensions, but over the years indexing has increased the government benefits to the point we will gain a small amount when the transition is complete. With indexing we will be further ahead in the future with higher government benefits and lower private pension benefits.

We went from 25% of all our income indexed to 67%, where it will remain for life, unless I have indexing returned to my pension, which would make it 100% indexed.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

I should note that I also made the calculation taking CPP & OAS as early as possible with no other changes in my spreadsheet... Result was 46% of spending...Quite a significant drop from 75%. This did result in a slightly lower net worth at around age 70 but this was recovered as the years rolled by. Trick is to live long enough.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Hopefully about 50% will come from indexed income, excluding any government programs.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

While I understand the thinking re taxable income gaspr, I would take a careful look at the 'bird in the hand' affect of deferring your CPP and OAS.
http://retirehappy.ca/four-reasons-why-you-should-still-take-cpp-early-post-2011-rules/

That article outlines the math but the math is also not the only factor to consider. The 'trick' as you note is to live long enough to have the math start working in your favour if you defer collecting, as the article indicates but you have no way at all of knowing if that will happen or not. You're betting on the '2 in the bush'.

Beyond that there is the benefit of spending it. What I mean is, when you are younger, the reality is that you are better able to spend and enjoy it. Most retirees find that the older they get, the lower their spending becomes in terms of discretionary spending. If you have the money at 60 and want to travel or spend a winter in Florida or whatever, then you are able to do so. That might not be the case later on. 

The saying, 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' exists for a reason. Think about it, 1 bird can never be worth more than 2 birds mathematically. Therefore, there must be other reasons beyond the simple mathematical for the saying to have come to be. Consider those other reasons as well as the mathematical.

I'm also reminded although I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, of someone I knew who died of a heart attack at age 67. He deferred and collected nothing at all. He could have put what he would have collected just into his bank account and his widow would have that money today.


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

gaspr said:


> I think we can all agree that inflation is one of the major threats to a successful retirement. With that in mind, we have decided to try and max out our indexed retirement income by deferring CPP and OAS for as long as possible and spending down the investment accounts in the interim. We estimate total annual pre-tax spending to be around $70000 in todays dollars. Of that amount, we estimate that about 75% will be covered by CPP, OAS and the wife's DB pension. Should easily cover at least the necessities. Might consider indexed annuities with remaining RRSPs at age 71 to cover the remaining 25%. If we can achieve this, we could look at being a lot more aggressive investing any remaining savings...TFSAs etc...
> 
> Your thoughts?


Have you considered that deferring CPP *may* end up costing you because there can be more years of zero earnings counted towards your calculations? That is something that will involve some additional math to calculate (unless you know you will hit the ceiling of maximum contributions anyway). Dogger can perform some detailed calculations if you have your list of contributions by year for you and your spouse.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

We actually did make use of Dogger's services to calculate expected CPP taking into consideration zero earning years, and highly recommend him! My feeling is that IF we are in good to excellent health and IF there is no strong bequest motive, that annuitizing makes sense in many ways. With that in mind, the cheapest way to annuitize is to defer CPP and OAS as much as possible. Yes, we have to weigh the "bird in the hand " payments AND the missed opportunity costs. Nowhere else can you purchase a SPIA with indexing that comes close. 

Michael Kitces has written an excellent article about this (US centric) but the same principles apply. https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-delaying-social-security-can-be-the-best-long-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

Here is another article by Kitces regarding delaying Social Security. https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-asymmetric-value-of-delaying-social-security-benefits-as-the-ultimate-hedge/


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

Interesting perspective, gaspr, from the Kitces' articles. We should have about 5 years or so after early retirement but before my spouse turns 60 to decide. 

I guess, if you were doing well in retirement, you may be able to more aggressively "front end" your expenses during the first 10-15 years of retirement, which is, from what I've read, not atypical in reality. By that I mean, I've read that retirees tend to see a significant drop in discretionary spending at some point in their 70's.

So, if you were finding your investment portfolio was more than keeping pace with your expenses, and perhaps you weren't as concerned with passing along a sizeable estate, this could be a good strategy to mitigate the risk of outliving your money.

That being said, there are quite a few "ifs" and putting more faith in the government (and hoping to live long enough to offset draining your own savings)... Not convinced it is the right strategy for me, but I'm not dismissing it outright.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

A few quotes I like from the articles...

(delaying) "can actually be the best means to securing a successful retirement, by converting the uncertainty of market returns into the certainty of higher Social Security payments!"

"As it turns out, the lower the growth rate, the shorter the breakeven period and the greater the value of delaying Social Security benefits (because that initial year's worth of benefits won't have as much time to grow)."

"In other words, spending portfolio assets to delay Social Security becomes the equivalent of liquidating a “low” return asset to buy a “higher” return one instead!"

"Which means in the end, the true value of delaying Social Security is a triple-benefit of hedging longevity, poor returns, and high inflation"

Interesting that delaying payments is is almost the opposite of what most Canadian financial advisors tell you...perhaps because their incentives are not aligned with those of their clients?


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

CPP/OAS will be the only indexed part of my retirement income, comprising about 16% of the total.



gaspr said:


> A few quotes I like from the articles...
> Interesting that delaying payments is is almost the opposite of what most Canadian financial advisors tell you...perhaps because their incentives are not aligned with those of their clients?


My fee only advisor recommended delaying CPP to 70, mainly because it will likely result in a higher estate value. She did say that most clients take it early anyway. I said "So if I want to leave a bigger inheritance I should take it at 70, but if I want to spend it, I should take it early". She smiled and said yes.

But the article raises good points. If your ability to fund retirement through a long life is tenuous, delaying it is probably better since you get the advantages of larger payments, and indexing on a larger value.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Can you explain what "higher estate value" means and how taking CPP later is going to cause this?

thanks


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

RBull said:


> Can you explain what "higher estate value" means and how taking CPP later is going to cause this?


Hi RBull, "higher estate value" means the value of a person's assets after they die (hopefully not for a long time for us).

Assuming retirement in 2016, taking CPP at 60 reduces the payments by 36% (.6% per month) compared to taking it at 65. Taking it at 70 increases it by 42% (.7% per month). So taking it at 70 will give more than double the monthly amount compared to taking it at 60. Plus indexing will be kicking at a higher starting rate. So if you live long enough the additional CPP received will resulting in getting enough extra to offset the benefit of not spending your own savings earlier, reducing the likelihood of running out of money because of longevity, high inflation, prolonged low investment returns or all of those (think stagflation in the 1970s.)

Calculating a breakeven point is not too hard. The real trick is forecasting if you will live long enough to reach that breakeven point.

Still, many people prefer the bird in the hand effect to which OldPro referred to in post #6 above to the hard math of the Michael Kitces' articles linked in posts 8 and 9.


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

^^^ I ran my own scenario through my retirement drawdown calculator and was surprised to see that deferring the start of CPP from 60 to 70 made a huge and positive difference in the estate's value. 

Now, if you end up depleting your retirement portfolio too much too soon, and/or your expenses are still quite high compared to the CPP/OAS income, then it may not work out at all. Also, I didn't both looking at what age the projections would show that taking CPP late started to pull ahead vs. taking it early. 

By the time we would have our CPP and OAS income coming in at 70, it potentially represented the vast majority of our income needs. Thus, our SWR for our retirement portfolios was just over 1% once we both hit 70.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Here's an example 63 yo retiree with a $750K RSP. In one instance he starts his CPP at 65 and in the 2nd instance he starts it at 70.

If he lives beyond 82, his estate will be better off with the late CPP option, if he dies prior to 83, his estate suffers. In both cases he enjoys exactly the same $40K after tax lifestyle. (BC taxation)

http://www.fimetrics.com/joe-schmuck.pdf


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

steve41 said:


> Here's an example 63 yo retiree with a $750K RSP. In one instance he starts his CPP at 65 and in the 2nd instance he starts it at 70.
> 
> If he lives beyond 82, his estate will be better off with the late CPP option, if he dies prior to 83, his estate suffers. In both cases he enjoys exactly the same $40K after tax lifestyle. (BC taxation)
> 
> http://www.fimetrics.com/joe-schmuck.pdf


I must be confused from your graph. It seems to me that the graph shows the opposite of what I would expect plus his net worth starts at much less than the $750k (is that factoring in some sort of after tax worth of the RRSP?). The graph shows that net worth goes down faster in the beginning when he takes early CPP and ends up higher at the end. If you are deferring CPP, it should mean that you are taking more out of your RRSP at the beginning and thus the net worth should go down faster.

That seems counterintuitive - is the legend wrong? Or do you somehow calculate a CPP into a "net worth" amount.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

*Steve is your legend backwards?*

Hi Steve. Thanks. 
Did you reverse the legend? The triangle marker should be [email protected] 70.
If so, your graph illustrates what I was trying to say.

If Joe was evaluating his options he would see:
Option 1, take CPP @ 65: If I die at 69 my heirs will get an extra $30k, but if I live to 94 I will run out of money
Option 2, take CPP @ 70: If I die at 69 my heirs will get $30k less, but at 94 I will have $100k left and I won't run out of money until a few years later.

In that case I would take option 2. Considering how life expectancy continues to increase, if your ability to fund a long life is tenuous, delaying taking CPP is the lower risk option.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I wish I could say I was trying to see who was paying attention... but I can't. I switched the legends by mistake. (blush)

It is fixed now.

Steve


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

GreatLaker said:


> Hi RBull, "higher estate value" means the value of a person's assets after they die (hopefully not for a long time for us).
> 
> Assuming retirement in 2016, taking CPP at 60 reduces the payments by 36% (.6% per month) compared to taking it at 65. Taking it at 70 increases it by 42% (.7% per month). So taking it at 70 will give more than double the monthly amount compared to taking it at 60. Plus indexing will be kicking at a higher starting rate. So if you live long enough the additional CPP received will resulting in getting enough extra to offset the benefit of not spending your own savings earlier, reducing the likelihood of running out of money because of longevity, high inflation, prolonged low investment returns or all of those (think stagflation in the 1970s.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply GreatLaker. That's exactly what I thought you meant. I asked because I had a hard time getting my head around the concept of delaying and taking more from our own assets in the meantime and still winding up with more. However, a quick look shows you're right by delaying CPP and having larger withdrawals/estate value, with the gamble of course being longevity. I need to play around with my spreadsheet with different CPP time frames/amounts and the corresponding withdrawals. My original plan was 65 for both my wife and I. I've corresponded with dogger on some rough numbers and know approx breakeven points for my wife and I already. We're retired now but that's about 9 years away anyhow so as time goes on we can see how things are going and make more informed calculations/decisions closer to eligibility time 60+.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I can appreciate there is the math in all this, but I wonder for the retirees here, here is my question: 

why not take the money as soon as you can, given longevity risk is always present?

Maybe it's more bird in the hand vs. two in the bush which has been referenced above. I suppose it also depends what your goals are, if you want to leave a legacy; inheritance or not.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> why not take the money as soon as you can, given longevity risk is always present?
> 
> Maybe it's more bird in the hand vs. two in the bush which has been referenced above. I suppose it also depends what your goals are, if you want to leave a legacy; inheritance or not.


I always take the bird in the hand. Took CPP early and OAS at 65. Didn't do any math around it either (other than knowing that since I retired at 57, I didn't want a whole lot of non-contributing years in there).


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I can see this AR. I think I am inclined to follow your lead. Thanks for chiming in.

OAS will be age 67 or higher for me. We'll see how our government changes the rules going-forward!


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

http://www.fimetrics.com/joe-schmuck.pdf

Notice that the breakeven point lies exactly halfway between the LE of a male smoker and a non-smoker. Whoudathunk?


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

janus10 said:


> ^^^ I ran my own scenario through my retirement drawdown calculator and was surprised to see that deferring the start of CPP from 60 to 70 made a huge and positive difference in the estate's value.
> 
> Now, if you end up depleting your retirement portfolio too much too soon, and/or your expenses are still quite high compared to the CPP/OAS income, then it may not work out at all. Also, I didn't both looking at what age the projections would show that taking CPP late started to pull ahead vs. taking it early.
> 
> By the time we would have our CPP and OAS income coming in at 70, it potentially represented the vast majority of our income needs. Thus, our SWR for our retirement portfolios was just over 1% once we both hit 70.


All else being equal with my particular situation and variables, this is how it stacked up:

Taking CPP at 60: SWR is 5% until 60 (income solely from investments), 4% from 60 to 67 (investments + CPP) and 3% after (investments + CPP + OAS).
Taking CPP at 70: SWR is 6% until 67, 4.5% from 67 to 70, <1% at 70.
Our estate would have the same value at age 80 in the two scenarios.

That's a considerable risk to delay CPP all the way until 70 in my case since that is 15'ish years of 6% withdrawal rates (I assumed 2% inflation, 2% net growth for RRSPs and TFSA's, 3% net growth on non-registered portfolio made up of 75% capital gains, 20% dividends and 5% interest) starting with RRSP first, then non-registered portfolio. RRSPs would be depleted by the time we start receiving OAS.

Still plenty of time before that decision needs to be met, and a lot of things can change by then.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Speaking for myself I don't think I can properly answer the question until the time comes when we actually commit ourselves to taking it. 

However I don't think it's a simple answer. Many things have to be considered such as family longevity history, other income, pensions/survivor benefits, assets, legacy etc. To me, longevity risk can also mean living longer than expected and not having enough other income or assets to meet needs. A larger indexed relatively guaranteed CPP may be highly beneficial in that case. It also might make sense for one spouse to do one thing and the other to something else, as it relates to pensions and survivor benefits. 

My hunch is many folks jump at the chance to get some income quickly from CPP and may not consider carefully all the scenarios or simply have a bird in the hand philosophy. That may be right for them, and we may even ultimately choose the same. I hope to look carefully at our situation when the time comes and decide with all the information and scenarios clear to us.


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

My Own Advisor said:


> I can appreciate there is the math in all this, but I wonder for the retirees here, here is my question:
> 
> why not take the money as soon as you can, given longevity risk is always present?
> 
> Maybe it's more bird in the hand vs. two in the bush which has been referenced above. I suppose it also depends what your goals are, if you want to leave a legacy; inheritance or not.


Of course, it doesnt have to be an all or nothing. Since women tend to live longer than men, and typically are younger than their spouses, one strategy could be to look at having the male take early CPP and deferring the CPP for female. Or, if there is a significant disparity in ages, regardless of gender, then have the younger spouse defer their CPP.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Further to RBull's point, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe take one CPP at 60 and defer the other, if you can.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^I've thought through that scenario and it's a possibility for us.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Here's the same 63 yo retiree with a $750K RSP. In one instance he starts *both* his CPP *and OAS* at 65 and in the 2nd instance he delays them.

http://www.fimetrics.com/newjoe-schmuck.pdf[/QUOTE]


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Cool. Thanks Steve


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

> My hunch is many folks jump at the chance to get some income quickly from CPP and may not consider carefully all the scenarios or simply have a bird in the hand philosophy.


The question people are asking is "What if I delay taking CPP & OAS, and don't live to the break-even point?" And the answer is you will get less from CPP, which means your beneficiaries will inherit less money. You will have passed away, so it will not matter to you.

The question people should ask is "What if I take CPP & OAS early and live longer than expected, especially if that happens during adverse economic conditions with high inflation and low investment returns (like the 1970s)?" The answer is you may have to dramatically curtail your expenses late in life, and could end up in a subsistence living, depending on social assistance.

The two graphs Steve supplied demonstrate that clearly.

If I model 3% real return (5.5% nominal / 2.5% inflation) there is no risk. If I model 0% real return (3% nominal / 3% inflation) I get into scenarios like Steve has shown. Having said that, I have not decided when to take CPP. My brain and financial advisor say take it later, my emotions and friends say take it earlier.

For people on indexed pensions I think this is less critical, since the indexed pension means there is less need for the indexation of government pensions.

Also remember that delaying CPP may result in lower payouts if you don't have the full number of CPP contributory working years. Obviously that will set the latest you should take it.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

RBull said:


> To me, longevity risk can also mean living longer than expected and not having enough other income or assets to meet needs.


To me, that is THE definition of longevity risk.

I'll say again that it only makes sense to delay IF....you have no strong bequest motive ...and are in as good as, or in better health than others of your age cohort.

And it is worth noting that when taking benefits early, and then living much longer than normal, that you could end up being a financial burden on your heirs...a terrible result... This is what longevity risk is.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

My Own Advisor said:


> I can appreciate there is the math in all this, but I wonder for the retirees here, here is my question:
> 
> why not take the money as soon as you can, *given longevity risk is always present*?
> 
> Maybe it's* more bird in the hand vs. two in the bush which has been referenced above.* I suppose it also depends what your goals are, if you want to leave a legacy; inheritance or not.


Longevity risk? In a lot of cases, you really don't really know how you have until you exit this world...so you have to plan such very carefully. I might add, that you should have enough financial resources to take care of yourself at that critical point in life, where you may not have all your faculties...(alzehmiers/dementia, MS, or other debilitating human diseases, which would mean you can no longer take care of yourself, having to depend 100% for your care on others. 

It would be nice to have a "crystal ball" (or an app as the case may be) to tell you within a few months, how long you really have ....in helping you with your planning. 
OR..maybe fill out your personal data on this online calculator to determine life expectancy?
http://gosset.wharton.upenn.edu/mortality/perl/CalcForm.html

Today, with the knowledge that a lot of "BabyBoomers" are retiring, or already in retirement in this decade (2010-2020), one has to realize that the demand for LTC (long term care) space is more demanding than it ever was. 

If the median life expectancy in normal living, (no life threatening diseases or other events to "take you out early"), is around 80 (plus or minus 10 years), and assisted living/LTC becoming more and more expensive each year, the #1 objective should be..
"will I have enough funding to take care of myself to the end of life."


----------



## jambo411 (Apr 6, 2009)

In the beginning about 85% indexed. I will be taking CPP this year on my 61 birthday. If I don't I will just be adding more zero years and lose some anyways. I will use it to pay off debt then fund TFSA. DW is same age but is working in our small business. She may take it at 63 or wait if we keep the company going. We will reassess OAS when the time comes and may defer one or the other if we still make wages. 

My DB pension is currently indexed but who knows the future.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

One of the biggest risks is government interference - take it while you can.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

steve41 said:


> Here's the same 63 yo retiree with a $750K RSP. In one instance he starts *both* his CPP *and OAS* at 65 and in the 2nd instance he delays them.
> 
> http://www.fimetrics.com/newjoe-schmuck.pdf


 ... maybe I'm reading these graphs incorrectly so got some questions:

1. Why is Joe Schmuck's biggrin net worth starting out at ~$430K when his RSP is already $750K as stated above? Or is this only his investments' net worth?
2. On the After Tax Income graph, why does the amount drop off so abruptly at about age "93" on the no delay line (blue)? 
3. On the NW (Delaying CPP/OAS) graph, what is the rate of depletion for the "no delay" camp, any idea? 
4. And at what age is expected on complete depletion of NW/Assets for the "delay" camp? It seems to be 98 on projection.

Just want to understand these estimates better.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Longevity risk? ... another way of saying "will I have enough funding to take care of myself to the end of life."


 ... and sounds like do you want to buy an annuity for that risk? :wink:


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

Retired Peasant said:


> One of the biggest risks is government interference - take it while you can.



CPP seems to be well funded at the moment...OAS is at the whim of the ruling political party, and will be constantly reviewed and tweaked...

I agree that government interference is a possibility, but I also think that it would be political suicide for any party to try and reduce benefits while the majority of boomers are still alive and kicking. That will change at some point, but is likely a long way off...

I actually think that if they do anything to tweak the programs, that they might be more inclined to INCREASE the deferral incentives, because very few are taking advantage of the deferrals as they are now. My humble opinion...


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

OK..... I changed the time horizon out beyond 98 years. It makes it clearer. 

Net worth is strictly an estate measure. If the subject dies at any point in time, NW is the amount the estate sees net of tax.

The net income drop-off represents the capital exhausting and the remaining income derived from oas&cpp only.

There is no specific rate of depletion.... it is a product of the 'reverse tax' computation.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

Here is a link to another article by Mike Piper about deferring retirement benefits. Again, it is written from a US viewpoint. The principle arguments are the same this side of the border.

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/social-security-benefits-single/


----------



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

There is something to be said for deferring the CPP to get the maximum benefit if, when combined with OAS and CPP, it comes very close to covering all projected retirement expenses. Then, an early retiree doesn't need to necessarily think about making their retirement savings last 30+ years, but just comfortably get them to age 70. (When I say comfortably, I mean with some safety margin, not literally running out on the day before your 70th birthday.)

I do see risk to putting off CPP so far down the road which increases the chances that the government will change the benefits in a way that hurts, rather than helps, me. They've moved OAS start from 65 to 67 and increased the penalty for taking CPP early (although, to be fair, they've also increased the reward for taking it later).


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

janus10 said:


> There is something to be said for deferring the CPP to get the maximum benefit if, when combined with OAS and CPP, it comes very close to covering all projected retirement expenses. Then, an early retiree doesn't need to necessarily think about making their retirement savings last 30+ years, but just comfortably get them to age 70. (When I say comfortably, I mean with some safety margin, not literally running out on the day before your 70th birthday.)
> 
> I do see risk to putting off CPP so far down the road which increases the chances that the government will change the benefits in a way that hurts, rather than helps, me. They've moved OAS start from 65 to 67 and increased the penalty for taking CPP early (although, to be fair, they've also increased the reward for taking it later).


I agree that there is some risk. I really like the fact that deferring can significantly reduce the chances of ever becoming a financial burden on family. Also like that it actually allows one to safely spend more from the nest egg...it increases the SWR. It looks like a no brainer for those in reasonable health and with enough of a nest egg to spend down in the early years. Those with a strong bequest motive will have a tougher decision to make.


----------



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

gaspr said:


> I think we can all agree that inflation is one of the major threats to a successful retirement. With that in mind, we have decided to try and max out our indexed retirement income by deferring CPP and OAS for as long as possible and spending down the investment accounts in the interim. We estimate total annual pre-tax spending to be around $70000 in todays dollars. Of that amount, we estimate that about 75% will be covered by CPP, OAS and the wife's DB pension. Should easily cover at least the necessities. Might consider indexed annuities with remaining RRSPs at age 71 to cover the remaining 25%. If we can achieve this, we could look at being a lot more aggressive investing any remaining savings...TFSAs etc...
> 
> Your thoughts?


In my world Will retire early for me at 56

Have sitting in cash XXXXX

Property of XXXXXX

Net assets of XXXXXX

Will take pension income as soon as possible for me and common law partner better wife

Will have more than is needed for full life expective of 100 years


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Any big plans for retirement 1980?


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Looks like he can expect an XXXXXXX after tax lifestyle and pass on XXXXXXX to his estate at age 100. Nice going!each:


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^LOL. You've added an extra X!


----------



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

My Own Advisor said:


> Any big plans for retirement 1980?


That is a loaded ?

I have worked as a mechanic from 78

Have now some cash(net worth)of xxxxxxx

With the purchase of xxx acres of property 5 to 6 yeras ago

Also built a large garage 5 years ago two story,I would all members to visit me with all costs on me after your arrive

I personally would like to travel all of my province in comfort and eat lobster and cod deep fried with Chips on a bench beside the ocean

I have all members covered on me

I will retire in in 23 months


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

1980z28 said:


> That is a loaded ?
> 
> I have worked as a mechanic from 78
> 
> ...


 ... so when are we getting the invites to the Retirement-Party-By-The-Ocean? And yes, I got my eyes on the lobsters ... mmm mmm mmm.  Welcome back!


----------

