Originally Posted by
Albief15
If I KNEW I wanted to work until 65, my numbers show a plus of 63k, up to 193k. That kind of leap might make me a huge fan of trying to improve the plan.
Leaving at 60 or 62 are much more modest gains. About 5-12k (maybe 20k if it goes really well) a year at 62. Less than 10k if I leave at 60...
I'm a solid "show me". Protect me from the downside, and find a way to make sure I cannot go backwards--in good years or bad--and I'll consider it. Barring going all the way to 65....the risk verses reward needs to be carefully scrutinized. I'll take some risks for some potential major upside gains. Waiting until 65 to reap most of those gains, however, may not be worth it. If there is a chance of making less than I do now if I bail at 58, 60, or 62...I'll have to slide over to the "no" side.
I'm not an investing genius, and I don't know how hard it will be for the fund to average 5%. I just want the ability to be able to bail at 55 and onwards without being "stuck". Don't let me slide backwards and close doors behind me...if it takes away options it will have to be a "no".
For me, putting in 25 years and retiring at 60, the gain was $1K up to $7K. Not worth the risk. But that included a floor benefit which has to be negotiated as well as a 5% hurdle rate which is lower than the rate that FedEx uses now to fund our retirement. FedEx drew a line in the sand that it was to expensive to raise our retirement, yet those two items alone will cost the company more. That is unless somehow we pay for it by capping the returns for a stabilization fund. Notice that the modeler left that out. There is a question on the union Q&A page about including the stabilization fund in the modeler. The answer was that they left it out to make it easier for us to understand. I guess we aren't smart enough for them to be transparent.
