The most dangerous number in retirement planning

If your retirement plan is built on average life expectancy, you're taking a 50/50 risk you don't need to take.

"Life expectancy" has become retirement planning's default setting. It's the number that pops up in calculators, seminars and casual conversation - "you'll live to about..." - as if it's a personalised forecast.

But it's not. And treating it like one is where a lot of retirement plans quietly go wrong.

Life expectancy sounds like a prediction, but it isn't. It's an average.

And the brutal truth about averages is this: about half of people will live longer than the average. So if you plan your retirement income to "average life expectancy", you are effectively running a 50/50 plan.

That might be fine for deciding how many chairs to hire for a party. It's not fine for funding the rest of your life.

Why planning to average life expectancy creates a 50/50 outcome

This is exactly where retirement confidence gets lost.

People are told a neat number - "mid-80s" or similar - and it creates a false sense of certainty. Deep down, most people know it's not certain, so they respond in one of two ways.

Some spend too cautiously for years, worried about running out, and end up living smaller than they needed to.

Others spend with confidence early, then find they're forced to cut back later when the plan meets reality.

Neither outcome is ideal, and both often start with the same mistake: treating an average as a finish line.

Why "How long will I live?" is the wrong retirement question

A more confidence-building way to plan starts with a simpler, more honest question: not "what's the average age people die?", but "how confident do I want to be that my plan will last?"

That's a question normal people can answer because it matches how we think about risk in real life.

You don't insure your house for the "average" fire. You insure it to a level that lets you sleep at night. Retirement planning can work the same way.

What is a planning age and how is it different from life expectancy?

One practical way to turn that confidence into a number is to choose a "planning age" rather than a life expectancy.

A planning age is not what you expect to happen; it's what you want to be prepared for.

A useful benchmark is an age that gives you around 80% confidence your plan will still be standing - meaning only about 20% of people would be expected to live longer than that age.

It's not perfection, but it's a far better foundation for confidence than a coin toss.

What age should you plan to live to in retirement?

When you translate that idea into a simple rule of thumb, the planning age is higher than most people assume.

A sensible starting point is to plan to about 94 for a single man, about 96 for a single woman, and about 98 for a couple (because the plan needs to last until the last person is gone).

Those numbers won't be right for everyone, and they don't need to be.

Their value is that they correct the common underestimation built into "average life expectancy", and they're easy enough to remember that people can actually use them.

Why planning to 94, 96 or 98 often reduces retirement anxiety

At first glance, planning to 94, 96 or 98 can feel confronting.

But in practice it often does the opposite: it reduces the background anxiety that sits underneath many retirements.

Confidence doesn't come from a neat number. It comes from knowing your plan has a realistic runway, including the years that are hardest to fund - the late-80s and 90s - when healthcare costs can rise and flexibility can fall.

How a longer planning horizon improves retirement spending decisions

A longer planning horizon also improves the decisions that matter most.

If you accept that retirement may last 25, 30, even 35 years, you naturally pay more attention to sustainable spending, keeping some growth in the mix, and building flexibility into the plan so a bad market year doesn't force a permanent cut to income.

It becomes less about guessing an end date and more about designing a plan that can cope with uncertainty.

How confidence-based planning gives permission to spend in retirement

This shift can also solve one of retirement's most common emotional problems: the fear of spending.

Many people don't just want "more money" - they want permission to use what they have. They want to travel, help kids, renovate, enjoy life, without the nagging feeling that every decision is reckless.

A confidence-based planning age doesn't guarantee outcomes, but it makes the trade-offs clearer and turns spending from an anxious impulse into a deliberate choice: what you can comfortably spend now while still protecting your future self.

Why life expectancy works for policy but not for personal planning

None of this is meant to scare people into assuming they'll live to 100. It's meant to fix a framing problem.

Life expectancy is a useful statistic for public policy, but it's a blunt tool for personal planning. It tells you the midpoint, not the risk.

And the risk is the whole point.

Retirement planning is about risk, not averages

The simple takeaway is this: if your plan is built to the average, it's built on a 50/50 outcome.

A better approach is to pick a planning age that reflects the level of confidence you want, then shape spending and strategy around that.

For many people, thinking in terms of 94, 96 and 98 is a cleaner, more realistic starting point than "mid-80s".

Not because everyone will get there, but because enough will - and because a plan built for reality is the quickest way to build real retirement confidence.

Get stories like this in our newsletters.