Nothing gets me thinking about life quite like death.  I attended two funerals for clients in the last week and have been doing quite a bit of thinking.

At first, the obvious things came to mind. You can't take it with you. Money doesn't buy happiness. The most valuable things in the world aren't things. The richness in life does not come from being rich, it comes from relationships and experiences.

I could see this very clearly as we gathered to grieve our loss and celebrate the time we had with the deceased. For me, having to pick something up on the way home became a chance to do something nice for my wife rather than a little annoyance, and several concerns of mine utterly seemed unimportant. I hugged my wife and children little tighter, a little longer.

We spend a lot of time in this profession assessing and critiquing products, strategies and software. After this past week, I am reminded of the limitations of these pursuits and just how important it is to have meaningful conversations with clients about their retirement life, not just their retirement assets.

The conversation reveals strategy which informs the product selection. Software merely supports the process. Software cannot translate body language, see the look in a person's eye, or hear the tone in the person's voice and understand what they might mean. Software has dramatically improved -- and I shudder to think of practicing without it -- in the 20-plus years I have been practicing, but I have yet to find the package that cares about a human being or a person's family.

I feel similarly about many of the academic studies regarding withdrawal rates and retirement income planning. I read as many of these as I can. I have dissected them from every angle I can conceive. I have written and spoken about them more times than I can remember. I am thankful for their existence, the efforts of their authors, and I refer to their findings often.

However, I also wonder if the financial planning community might go too far in relying on the studies and lead their clients to a lives less fulfilling than they could be.

Ever since Bill Bengen's 1994 Journal of Financial Planning paper that has led to the so-called "4 percent rule," people have been questioning whether or not the rule would hold up. Some of these examinations of the question lead one to believe retirees will do fine spending more. Most however, especially lately, seem to suggest the opposite.

The 4 percent rule is based on the historical record of a simple portfolio and a rigid series of withdrawals. In this election year, many people seem greatly concerned about the future and seem to have difficulty believing that financial assets can produce a good result. Some valuation measures indicate the expectation should be for results below the historical average.

That may be true, or it may not, but before you counsel clients to dramatically reduce their spending consider that most withdrawal rate studies, whether based on the historical record or a simulation, do not come to the 4 percent number from using average returns. The 4 percent comes from "worst case" or near worst case scenarios. I recommend Michael Kitces blog, Nerd's Eye View, for a good discussion of this issue. If we structure client cash flow to match up with an unprecedented worst-case scenario -- worse than the Depression, the Carter years, or the 2000s -- are we overdoing it?

Most withdrawal studies assume a steady inflation-adjusted spending pattern. Personally, I have yet to meet anyone who spends steadily unless they have no other choice. For most clients, when they felt things had gone well they loosened the purse strings and when they felt things had gone poorly, or would, they tightened up their spending. John Guyton's work illustrates clearly that people who are willing to build in some spending flexibility, can spend more than otherwise.

Here's the thing that's been on my mind recently: Regardless if you take the conservative approach and recommend an initial withdrawal rate of 4 percent or less or if your clients have the spending flexibility required for you to recommend something higher, most clients will have made less use than they could have of the funds they worked a lifetime to accumulate.

A strong majority of your clients will not need money nearly as long as you are assuming. Most Web sites that give life expectancy information put the probability of at least one member of a couple age 65 living 30 years at close to 20 percent. Your advice, for four out of five couples, is likely to result in a life that was less than it could have been, from a cash flow perspective anyway.

There were 23 obituaries in this morning's paper. Two of the people listed were over 90, the oldest 93. There were four younger than me. I'm 45.  Most days it is similar, with only a few people, if any, passing away in their nineties.

I admit I resist strongly making aggressive assumptions when advising retirees. "Retirement," in the classic sense, is the period in which one forever omits labor as a source of income. At some point, returning to the workforce is not an option and many clients have a keen sense of this. "I don't have a job I can fall back on," they'll say, and they are right.

I don't have a problem particularly with assuming a long lifespan. Saturday's paper featured a local woman who is turning 111 next week. Fact is a long lifespan is the explicit goal of most every client. They want to live a long healthy life. It is a bit unnatural to plan to "fail" on that goal but failure does happen.

Neither of the gentleman who left us this month had any need for an inflation-adjusted income stream that lasts a minimum of 30 years. The first funeral I went to was for a man who never got to retire. The money was there, but it was hard to leave the workforce after a successful 40-plus-year career. In the blink of an eye, he was gone.

The second funeral I attended was for man who retired and enjoyed a few active years early on but whose health deteriorated. He was 78. Both men have loving family, many friends, and the respect of their peers. Both would have said their lives were happy and successful even if statistically shorter than average.

I don't have an answer to the question of what we should assume for longevity. Sometimes I joke with people and ask them for their date of death. It sure would be easier doing the math if we had that data point ahead of time. Part of me wants to know my own date, but a big part of me is content not knowing.

One thing I know I've gotten from my recent funeral experience is that I am more committed than ever to having meaningful conversations with my clients about what their cash flow and bequest desires can mean to the quality of their life. The answers are not found in software or a magic product that will take care of everything. The answers, to the extent they exist, lie in the conversation.

My father often says, "nobody gives you tomorrow." He is absolutely right, as I have been reminded of yet again this month. So I will continue to preach about the wisdom of planning for the long term, but I will also actively seek ways to help my clients' assets support their need and desire to live as fully as possible the rest of their lives, however long that may be.

Before we part and go hug our loved ones a little tighter, a little longer (trust me, they won't mind), I want to make one last point. People tend to show concern for widows and so they ask questions like, "How are you doing?" "Can I help you with anything?" "Are you going to be OK, you know, financially?" It has been very gratifying to hear my clients assure their friends and family that they are well cared for and not worried about money issues. They can focus on coping with the changes that come with the end of the most significant relationship in their lives. Never underestimate what good planning can provide and the value of "being there" for other human beings. That value may be hard to quantify but it is real and it is profound.

Dan Moisand, CFP, has been featured as one of the America's top independent financial advisors by most leading financial advisor publications.  He has spoken to advisor groups on five continents on topics such as managing investments and navigating tax complexities for retirees, retirement readiness, and most topics relating to the development of the financial planning profession.  He practices in Melbourne, FL.  You can reach him at [email protected]