4% of what?

[gayl]

No something your doing is wrong. Your pension reduces your withdrawal. So you enter your nestegg and then enter 5% of that as a withdrawal, and then you enter your pension as a negative amount, which which should reduce your 5% withdrawal.

Where does the 21% number come from?  Slow down and try it again.

Man do I feel dumb! There is a box way to the bottom that I did not see before. Left check [default] it takes my pension plus withdrawal out the first year. Uncheck it and I have a 100% success ratio even if I modestly increase my ratio.

 

[Hyperborea]

What I mean is that your overall portfolio rate of return must be 7.5% or so in order to allow you to take 4% for your SWR, give half a percent to the money managers (and let's not forget the spreads and commissions charged and never seen when your funds buy and sell securities), and still have your portfolio grow by 3% in order to keep the real value intact against inflation.

This covers the simple analytical case. However, if this is the average return of your portfolio you may still end up using principal if the volatility of that return is anything but zero. In years in which the return is less than the average you will be withdrawing principal. So if that return is 3.5% one year then you have covered inflation and fees but your entire yearly spending of 4% is coming from principal. On the other side if you have returns of 11.5% one year then after you've covered your 7.5% (inflation + fees + yearly spending) you've added 4% to your portfolio.

Whether you actually do use up the principal over the long term life of the portfolio (your 30, 40, 50, etc year plan) depends on the sequence of those variations around the average return. If you get a lot of lower than average returns in the early years then you will start using up principal early in your plan. These are generally the withdrawal scenarios from the historical data that cause the portfolio to end the withdrawal period (30 years etc.) with no money left.

This indicates that it is a good idea for a FIREee to trade some average return for a lower volatility. How much average return should be traded off for how much volatility reduction? I'm not sure and I think that is an open question. It obviously, from ESRBob's explanation above, wouldn't be wise to go below 7.5% average return if you expect a 4% withdrawal. I would probably even suggest shooting for a little higher average return to balance against higher inflation (I think the average for the 20th century was 3.5%) and to provide a buffer.

 

[Nords]

E bonds (single letter "e")

??

I haven't heard about E bonds in years, which I thought was a nice touch for your joke about th's dad's shoebox. I wonder how many of the posters on this board have even SEEN an E bond.

In my spouse's family it was E bonds in paper grocery bags... and this was in the late '80s.

 

[unclemick]

88 year old Mom, 1973 -1978 E bonds. Getting her down to the bank to cash the ones past 30 years is more fun than pulling teeth. The Great Depression mentality dies hard.

She pisses and moans about having to pay taxes.

 

[RockMiner]

This covers the simple analytical case. However, if this is the average return of your portfolio you may still end up using principal if the volatility of that return is anything but zero. In years in which the return is less than the average you will be withdrawing principal. So if that return is 3.5% one year then you have covered inflation and fees but your entire yearly spending of 4% is coming from principal. On the other side if you have returns of 11.5% one year then after you've covered your 7.5% (inflation + fees + yearly spending) you've added 4% to your portfolio.

Whether you actually do use up the principal over the long term life of the portfolio (your 30, 40, 50, etc year plan) depends on the sequence of those variations around the average return. If you get a lot of lower than average returns in the early years then you will start using up principal early in your plan. These are generally the withdrawal scenarios from the historical data that cause the portfolio to end the withdrawal period (30 years etc.) with no money left.

This indicates that it is a good idea for a FIREee to trade some average return for a lower volatility. How much average return should be traded off for how much volatility reduction? I'm not sure and I think that is an open question. It obviously, from ESRBob's explanation above, wouldn't be wise to go below 7.5% average return if you expect a 4% withdrawal. I would probably even suggest shooting for a little higher average return to balance against higher inflation (I think the average for the 20th century was 3.5%) and to provide a buffer.

Hyperborea,

Good post! Isn't it correct to say that if one uses a large enough TIPS component in a portfolio, the SWR becomes much more predictable, though it causes faster erosion of principal?

If you were certain about maximum life span, you could almost eliminate risk of portfolio failure in some cases (assuming the TIPS inflation adjustment was accurate) if you are willing to accept a terminal value of zero. I forget who posted this observation...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

That was one of the wonder twins.

You have two problems with that method.

One is the observed principal erosion vs improvements in medical technology. I sure as hell will be upset if I got to 80, am still in excellent physical condition, but ate my portfolio and have to go stand in a walmart for 10 hours a day to eat.

The second is the presumption that CPI=inflation. I dont buy into that, and a lot of smart money people dont either. Every reasonable analysis I look at says CPI falls a percent short of actual inflation. That means in 30 years you'd lose a third of your buying power.

Just as you run out of money after having to downgrade from eating porterhouse steaks to pasta halfway through your retirement, you fondly remember cures for heart disease, cancer and high cholesterol being developed 10 years prior.

I'll take on a little more risk for the improved upside, thanks.
Even the target retirement and wellesley income funds keep a stock component and non tips bonds.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I agree. Looking at 'target retirement income', theres a stock piece, a TIPS piece, a regular bond piece...once again good asset allocation makes sense.

 

[Hyperborea]

Isn't it correct to say that if one uses a large enough TIPS component in a portfolio, the SWR becomes much more predictable, though it causes faster erosion of principal?

If you were certain about maximum life span, you could almost eliminate risk of portfolio failure in some cases (assuming the TIPS inflation adjustment was accurate) if you are willing to accept a terminal value of zero. I forget who posted this observation...

As has been said the lifespan issue is the real problem here.  If you know what it is exactly then sure this should work.  Though if you are young enough you will drive your SWR pretty low.  What's the SWR from an all TIPs portfolio for 50 years?  Are TIPs even going to be available in 30 years and what will the fixed rate on them be then?  Enough to survive on?  It seems pretty foolish for a really early retiree to plan on seriously spending down their portfolio for the early years.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I guess one reason I pay so little attention to SWR is that we are nearing SS and it seems to me we could live
just fine on our 2 SS checks and nothing else. In fact,
our combined estimated SS beneifits just about equal what we live on now, and we live pretty well. Of course, we actually have a significant income beyond SS. The 2
big unknowns are inflation and health problems.
But, you really can't cover all the potential troubles,
or at least we can't. Not on our budget.

JG

 

[treypar]

Why can you not take 5% out annually? It seems that should be reasonable.

 

[retire@40]

Why can you not take 5% out annually? It seems that should be reasonable.

Read the few hundred posts on SWR prior to yours and they should answer your question.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

Well, it's worth a summary.

Why can you not take 5% out annually? It seems that should be reasonable.

Way oversimplified: Assuming you mean 5% of your initial portfolio, inflation and historical returns indicate you had a chance of running out of money that way in the past if you adjust the yearly withdrawal for inflation. Not adjusting for inflation could run you short on spending money. If you mean 5% of the current balance each year your yearly withdrawal may be much higher or much lower than you need or want for that year.

If we knew future returns or even when we will die this would all be academic.

 

[Hyperborea]

Why can you not take 5% out annually? It seems that should be reasonable.

There are answers to this on multiple levels. The first level is that using the historical data from 1870 to the present that if you took more than about 4% there were periods that you would run out of money before 30 years were over.

If you go deeper and want to know why that would be so when the long term expected return is 10.5% for equities then the reason is volatility.

 

[treypar]

Suppose that you had a large portfolio and could take 5% and get buy for 10 to 15 years. Then start drawing down on the principal for the next few years.

 

[preben]

Atl; it all depends - what time periods are you talking about? What budget? What size nest egg? What is your flexibility in budget in case you instead follow a 5% of total value each year (without adjusting for inflation) Etc.

As such 5% is not impossible - 4% is the historical worst case scenario for a 30 year period without running out of money for a fairly low diversified portfolio (75% SP500/25% bonds).

Cheers!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Run firecalc (see the link just up above and to the right?)

Put in some numbers you like as far as portfolio size, term of withdrawal and balance of equities and bonds. Only takes a minute. It'll then spew out what would have happened to your sample portfolio during those 'n' year withdrawal terms throughout history. If you believe the future wont be worse than periods in the past (and there have been some doozies), then the maximum withdrawal rate firecalc gives you should be safe for the term you specify.

Generally about 4% is almost 100% safe. You might get away with 5%. You might not.

 

[Hyperborea]

As such 5% is not impossible - 4% is the historical worst case scenario for a 30 year period without running out of money for a fairly low diversified portfolio (75% SP500/25% bonds).

Yeah, with a more diversified portfolio (=> lower volatility but similar returns) you should be able to withdraw more. The problem is there isn't a lot of data that is freely available to test this with. I'm planning to use a more diversified portfolio in retirement but not directly plan for "extra" available withdrawals. If they occur I will get them through a variable withdrawal system (e.g. gummy's sensible withdrawals).

Heck, even with the not too diversified "standard" portfolio you can withdraw 5% and still succeed ~85% of the time. Now the problem is what are you going to do if you hit one of the 15% of the time periods? You don't know in advance if you will or not. Also if you are young enough then 30 year withdrawals are not long enough.

 

[treypar]

Thanks. Firecalc gives me 4.58 %. Suppose I take my porfolio and divide into two parts. One part gives me 5% forever. That return takes care of my living costs. The other part is invested in stocks for growth. What is wrong with that strategy?

 

[BigMoneyJim]

I've heard references that ports are safer if a bad spell doesn't hit in the first few years. How "certain" is this? If you could find out 5 or 10 years into ER if you have to go back to work it would be better than finding out in year 28, assuming a standard deterioration in physcial agility and company spirit.

Intuitively it feels that the historical returns are too overlapped to forecast such a determination with any confidence, though.

 

[Hyperborea]

Thanks. Firecalc gives me 4.58 %. Suppose I take my porfolio and divide into two parts. One part gives me 5%  forever. That return takes care of my living costs. The other part is invested in stocks for growth. What is wrong with that strategy?

What are you going to invest in that has a guaranteed 5% forever? Is it inflation adjusted?

 

[treypar]

No the 5% part would not be inflation adjusted but the other part of my portfolio would take of inflation with stock market growth.

 

[Hyperborea]

I've heard references that ports are safer if a bad spell doesn't hit in the first few years. How "certain" is this? If you could find out 5 or 10 years into ER if you have to go back to work it would be better than finding out in year 28, assuming a standard deterioration in physcial agility and company spirit.

Yeah, if you start pawing through the data (run FIREcalc in verbose mode) then you will find that most failures seem to occur because of bad early sequences - it's also reasonably intuitively obvious.  Start playing with the withdrawal rates - slowly bump it up, see where the failures occur, and then look at the first few years of that return sequence.

Now we've only got somewhere between ~4 and ~100 30-year data series depending on how you count the overlap.  The number of failing sequences is even smaller so doing any meaningful analysis on them is not possible.  You're really only going to get some subjective understanding from this.

 

[Hyperborea]

No the 5% part would not be inflation adjusted  but the other part of my portfolio would take of inflation with stock market growth.

The other stock part of your portfolio in the worst case scenarios historically would be just barely covering the inflation requirements of your withdrawal from it and wouldn't have any extra growth "left over" to cover the other part that you are taking 5% from.

With a roughly historical average inflation of 3.5% your 5% withdrawal would be cut to almost 1/3 of the initial amount in 30 years.  Whether that's ok or not depends on your age, the size of your portfolio, your spending amounts, plans to decrease spending over time, etc. etc. etc.

 

[treypar]

But the early failures are probably due to stock market weakness. If my portfolio at 5% will take care of me for forever with no pricinpal loss. Then I have the balance to fall back on for growth when the stock market rebounds.

 

[preben]

Atl; you might be right - make us an example with some $ nos and what you would invest in. Cheers!