Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Young and Older Folk Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Max2.0 who wrote (7800)	8/9/2024 6:09:48 PM
From: chowder	Respond to of 22064

Re: If we go down to say $2.1M and gain an extra $30K of SS in a few years plus have a cost of living that is maybe 70% of SOCAL living expenses, would that be a reasonable fallback strategy? That's not for me to say. I only know that in my situation, I wanted the income in place as quickly as I could get it there. I wanted that peace of mind of knowing I didn't need a fall back strategy. As I said originally, a lot of people might disagree with that approach, but I was asked my thoughts and I provided them.

To: Max2.0 who wrote (7800)	8/9/2024 6:53:02 PM
From: SeeksQuality	2 Recommendations Recommended By ddbpaso Fireball Dividend Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22064

Working longer isn't always an option. My business income is at the mercy of my clients. My wife's primary income depends on the continued operation of her employer. Sometimes you find yourself fully retired with no recourse. Agreed that downsizing to an area with a lower cost of living can have a huge impact. Not only can that shave $20k or more off the cost of living, but (assuming the house is fully paid off) it can release several hundred thousand dollars of principal to invest. That improves things on both ends! I'm a strong advocate of meeting the income needs, whatever they may be. But a temporary income need can be more easily met with asset sales than through higher yield. I've tried to avoid looking at the numbers, because they are scary if you think about them, but our outflow this year is going to end up north of $300k, somewhere in the $300k to $350k range. Our income isn't anywhere close to that, even if you include income from investment accounts that we don't have access to yet. Happily we don't NEED to generate $300k of income, we can get by with $150k of income with $250k of principal available to be spent as needed, and have a wide margin of safety to boot. It's a one-time need, obviously, but that's kind of the point. Short term needs are best met with saved principal, because $1 of principal funds $1 of need. It doesn't make sense to fund a need with income unless the need continues for 10++ years. (We could argue about the 10 to 15 year time frame.) I'm willing to spend money, but I would rather fund the need more cheaply where that makes sense.