• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

retirement planning

AwakeNAlive said:
All the more reason to insure it. Don't say "I think", you don't know. Why don't you do a premium comparison for earthquake insurance this year?

It doesn't cost thousands (plural). It could cost less than $2K a year.


You might not get a terminal illness, need a heart transplant or your house is devastated by a major earthquake but the risk is there. That's what insurance is for. So you don't have to pay out of pocket for all emergencies that life can throw at you
Click to expand...

:party:party Pretty much this. For many people, the value in their home is the majority of their net worth. To lose it all overnight is a life changing financial catastrophe.
 
Well even if one thinks they are going to be filthy rich and will be able to retire early, why should you have the mindset that you don't care, you should eat the rebuild cost following a catastrophic event?
 
Last edited:
littlebeast said:
only for certain financial and investment reasons (e.g. a net worth of $1MM minus a primary residence is the threshold to be accredited by the SEC - enabling investment in unregistered securities; and financial institutions will set thresholds for certain of their management opportunities based on net worth minus a primary residence). but even in those cases, the calculation is net worth ‘minus’ a primary residence - not a revised definition of net worth.

for the purposes of retirement planning - true net worth needs to be included, especially considering that many retirees change their living situation upon, or at some point after retirement, and any projected equity they have in their home can and should be used to model their options and the optimal timing of those options for decision making purposes.
Click to expand...

I do reconciliations for a living. I can also reconcile points of view.

This is obvious to me: If you don't expect to live in your home for the rest of your remaining life, then it is reasonable to include your current primary residence in retirement planning. If you're hell bent on staying where you are, then it is a different set of circumstances.

For now, I don't let money dictate how I should live my life or during retirement years. I set what is a high priority for me right now and do the the best that I can to grow assets before retirement. As I approach retirement age, I will be in a better position to buy more income producing assets.
 
My house is "NOT within 100 feet of a fault trace, NOT in a potential landslide area, NOT in an area of potential liquefaction, NOT in a subsidence area, NOT in a tsunami inundation area, IN Groundshaking Zone C - Very strong, NOT in a dam inundation area. "

---

I'm interested to see my "real" paycheck now that my 401k is properly set from the beginning of the year...had to do a couple of paychecks of 50% deductions to ensure I hit $19,000 last year...and then my last two checks had 0 deductions for 401k :)
 
Last edited:
AwakeNAlive said:
Your house is in San Francisco, near the earthquake faults. That is enough information.
Click to expand...

Not arguing against it, but in 89, my parents lost a plate sitting on a mantle over the fire place... definitely depends where you are. I have generic coverage on our house in Pacifica, it's not sitting on a mound of bedrock. It was $550 for this year.
 
Good God do i hate state farm. Not for any good reason, but the amount of mail they send you, even when signed up for edocs, is such a ridiculous amount.
 
AwakeNAlive said:
I do reconciliations for a living. I can also reconcile points of view.

This is obvious to me: If you don't expect to live in your home for the rest of your remaining life, then it is reasonable to include your current primary residence in retirement planning. If you're hell bent on staying where you are, then it is a different set of circumstances.

For now, I don't let money dictate how I should live my life or during retirement years. I set what is a high priority for me right now and do the the best that I can to grow assets before retirement. As I approach retirement age, I will be in a better position to buy more income producing assets.
Click to expand...

your perspective is probably very close to most people’s perspective. that is why, when planning for retirement, it is good to run multiple models covering multiple scenarios - and include in them as many variables as potentially apply. and it should be refreshed on a routine basis (to validate or adjust the assumptions used to develop them so that course corrections can be made while there is still time).

the bottom line is - we are all in the drivers seat when it comes to our future. and when driving, it’s very helpful to know among many other things, how much horsepower you have, how good your brakes are, and how much fuel you have in the tank, etc. look at it like an instrument panel - a supercomputer that calculates the myriad of possible effects of every financial decision you make, and when you make it. and while that may seem onerous and a kill-joy for those spontaneous desires we all have - most of those are not that consequential as one-offs. it’s the overall trajectory of the compound effect of those decisions that people need to have information on. having that knowledge can be comforting when it helps take the uncertainty out of what life will be like when a person gets old, what action they can take to influence that, and what the effect of those actions are predicted to be. similar to F1 race strategy (simplified), tweak your speed in balance with your fuel consumption and tire wear to get you to the finish line in the best possible position. the necessary data, in dashboard form, with all of the options displayed - is brilliantly useful.
 
I still am unlikely to get Earthquake insurance. I don't think you people realize how much it costs in San Francisco...my friend was quoted $7000 a year for his house.
 
The amt of the deductible determines the insurance premium.

Asking for quotes doesn't cost you anything. You get the info to make an informed decision.

I reached out to my Farmers agent this morning. This is how he responded:

CEA has been adjusting earthquake premiums year after year. The rates took a big reduction in the San Francisco area, but there is a huge increase in East Bay cities. ... CEA makes a decision on their rates, all insurance companies must go along with it. Inflation, materials & labor are up double digits yearly in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

This is all the more reason to ask about premiums today rather than to base your decision on what was quoted years ago or quoted for someone else's house.
 
Last edited:
kingmoochr said:
Depending how big and where, could cost him 500-700 to rebuild, so that's conservatively 1% of the cost. What's his deductible?
Click to expand...

I believe now you have a choice of deductible from 5 to 25 percent.

But this is something I did not know as I "assumed" you had to fork out money before getting your payment.

"You do not pay your deductible out-of-pocket.

The deductible is subtracted from your covered damage so you don’t have to pay any of the deductible up front to receive a claim payment."

https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/About-CEA/Frequently-Asked-Questions
 
GAJ said:
I believe now you have a choice of deductible from 5 to 25 percent.

But this is something I did not know as I "assumed" you had to fork out money before getting your payment.

"You do not pay your deductible out-of-pocket.

The deductible is subtracted from your covered damage so you don’t have to pay any of the deductible up front to receive a claim payment."

https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/About-CEA/Frequently-Asked-Questions
Click to expand...

That's the same with car insurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top