I came across a term I’d not heard before in an article from my local newspaper. S.K.I.ing: the act of spending down your retirement portfolio and assets without regard for familiar inheritance. To my mind it’s basically blowing the budget on travel and other indulgent consumption. Apparently it’s a growing “thing” now.
The article in question came with glowing endorsements from practitioners and testimonials from the potentially inheritanceless children, telling their parents not to feel guilty and they never expected an inheritance anyway. Everyone to their own thing, no harm done. But I have to wonder.
One of the traits that caught my eye was the word spontaneous. It seemed to be an underlying creed with the S.K.I.ing crowd interviewed in the article. Spontaneous, high value spending, from a portfolio doesn’t seem like a very sensible idea to me. Could some of the underlying thinking behind the movement be a lack of financial education?
Of course, “spontaneous” is a much prettier word than “unplanned,” and a much prettier word still than “sold to me by someone with a cruise line to keep profitable.” I have a sneaking suspicion that “spontaneity” here is less a personality trait and more a marketing department’s rebrand of what used to be called, less flatteringly, poor impulse control with a six-figure balance behind it.
The testimonials, those cheerful children insisting they never wanted an inheritance anyway, read less like reassurance and more like the world’s sweetest hostage video. Of course they’re saying the sanctioned thing. What’s the alternative, telling a journalist they’re a bit annoyed their parents sold the family silver for a business-class seat to Santorini? I suspect the whole “don’t worry about us” is just putting on a brave face.
So by all means, ski if you must: down the slopes or through the portfolio, it’s your life. I’m just not convinced the second kind is a sustainable pursuit. None of the practitioners in the article seemed to be budgeting for the boring stuff: the hip replacement, the care home, the decade of boring expenses that doesn’t come with a photo opportunity. Future unknown costs really do exist.
Do you know anyone taking this approach? It’s not for me. I’m still travelling and still enjoying retirement, but as a planned expense on a loose budget, not a spontaneous one on a shrinking portfolio.
Call me old-fashioned, but blowing the lot on a few extra experiences still seems like a poor deal for the kids, however politely they insist otherwise. Maybe that just makes me out of step with an increasingly self-centred world. But I can live with that.
Many articles urge us to enjoy as much of our money as we can while we are alive and able to enjoy it. The message can be seductive. On the other hand, there is the risk that we outlive our money. So we must balance the risks of spending too little and spending too much.
The residual portfolio value is the amount remaining after the distribution period has ended. If the residual value is zero after fully funding a 30 years long retirement using the “4% method”,it counts as a success.
Once retired and taking withdrawals, Bernstein says burn rate and time horizon are the most important determinants of success. I have introduced a margin of safety by choosing a withdrawal rate which will allow for a residual portfolio value of 25% (inflation adjusted) if we live to age 103. Leaving an inheritance behind was not the purpose, but the consequence of such conservative planning. We cannot risk pool the way insurance companies can, so using conservative assumptions is our best bet.
Reading about Pascal’s wager can help one better evaluate the risks of such strategies as “Dying with Zero”. In other words, when considering the probabilities of an outcome, remember to consider the consequence of even a very low probability outcomes.
I’d say we’re taking a middle path. I agree with Marilyn that I want to make sure we have enough of a cushion to care for ourselves for the duration, and I’d like to leave an inheritance.
We’ve already made our “big” financial move (our recent home purchase), we have two nice, paid-off, low-mileage cars, and we take nice trips and treat ourselves to the occasional really nice meal. I can’t see any need to ramp up our spending. We already have a nice life.
But I’m also not interested in pinching pennies to make sure our inheritance is larger when we pass. My husband is semi-retiring (going to 50% time) nine days from now, so our income will drop. I asked him which of my self-care line items I should drop (Pilates studio, massages, nail salon, etc.) given a tighter budget, and he said, “None of them.” In the big scheme of things, it’s not that much money. If we have to dip modestly into savings to supplement our monthly income, isn’t that what it’s there for?
I’d find all that spending very boring. I’m willing to spend for nice trips— right now. I’m trying to work up the courage to pull the trigger on business class seats to Greece in the spring. We have a vacation home and a rental apartment near our granddaughter’s family. We do what seems interesting— and also the unglamorous stuff like ongoing home maintenance. I expect our pensions and long term care insurance will cover time in The Home. But I’d be VERY uncomfortable running through our investments and other savings. Nobody knows what the future will bring, and while our kids protest the idea of inheritance, I feel more comfortable knowing they’ll have one.
In our families the care homes have gotten it all in the end anyway and our mothers are still living. Expecting the care homes will get in the end for them too. My mom has been in 5 years now after her stroke. Spouse’s mom almost a year….. Chris
Chris, that’s a lousy way to blow the kids’ inheritance. Here’s to hoping that we die in our sleep before it comes to that.
“Spontanious”, like Guinness, is only okay in moderation. And even if your kids don’t need the money, your surviving spouse or your grandkids might.
The “dying with zero” idea has always lacked appeal for me. Do I really want to trust a mortality table when projecting a budget to keep me fed until my last breath? I suspect the notion is born from a writer grasping for a topic. Still, there is value in searching for balance between enjoying the fruit of our life’s work and running through our savings with a “spontaneous” spending spree.
To me, the appeal of the “dying with zero” concept is that giving money away while you’re still living is more satisfying than keeping it all until you’re dead. Your family, the charities you care about–they can use the money now, rather than (maybe decades) later.
Of course, the devil is in the details, and figuring out how much is “enough” for your own future needs is not an exact science. (Die with Zero doesn’t suggest that you should shortchange your own future needs.)
Free Newsletter
Arrives weekly.