Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-14-2015, 02:24 PM   #181
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Thanks for posting.

A stock return of 6% nominal, and perhaps 3.5% after inflation of 2.5% is still a lot better than fixed income. So why not go 100% equity?
It requires portfolio of size that most people do not have. IE of size where one can comfortably live of off dividends.

And even in such case it is good to have few % in cash for emergencies.
__________________

__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-15-2015, 05:12 AM   #182
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
It requires portfolio of size that most people do not have. IE of size where one can comfortably live of off dividends...
Living entirely off dividends means your stash will last forever. However the 4% WR rule or FIRECalc results presume that a retiree will liquidate his portfolio and withdraw part of the principal as needed. Solvency until death is the objective, and not principal conservation. If one wants to maintain his principal, he definitely needs a larger stash.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-15-2015, 11:56 AM   #183
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Living entirely off dividends means your stash will last forever....If one wants to maintain his principal, he definitely needs a larger stash.
Or low overhead and maybe some hobby income. We're not big risk takers so that's our long term plan.
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 04:06 AM   #184
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Living entirely off dividends means your stash will last forever. However the 4% WR rule or FIRECalc results presume that a retiree will liquidate his portfolio and withdraw part of the principal as needed. Solvency until death is the objective, and not principal conservation. If one wants to maintain his principal, he definitely needs a larger stash.

as we saw in 2008 dividends get slashed , stopped and suspended at the worsat times . many times even when they are not they fail at keeping up with your own personal cost of living and expenses ,

that means making up short falls from principal so betting the ranch on just living off dividends only , rarely works out that way .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 07:44 AM   #185
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
as we saw in 2008 dividends get slashed , stopped and suspended at the worsat times . many times even when they are not they fail at keeping up with your own personal cost of living and expenses ,

that means making up short falls from principal so betting the ranch on just living off dividends only , rarely works out that way .
S&P 500 Dividend by Year

Yea less than 24% decrease at its worst. I think one would survive it for 2 years.
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 07:48 AM   #186
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
no one knows how long the next "good " downturn will last " making a plan based on driving and looking in the rear view mirror not a great idea . you need to have a comprhensive plan in place that allows for the spending of principal and not just the fact you will always survive on dividends .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 10:09 AM   #187
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
no one knows how long the next "good " downturn will last " making a plan based on driving and looking in the rear view mirror not a great idea . you need to have a comprhensive plan in place that allows for the spending of principal and not just the fact you will always survive on dividends .

One thing I admire about you Mathjack. You are 100% consistent, constant, and unyielding in your advocacy of "total return" and your viewpoint on dividends. And I see no fallacy in your thinking.
But there is an intelligent opposing view in investing for income in retirement without the main source coming from common stock dividends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 12:28 PM   #188
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
no one knows how long the next "good " downturn will last " making a plan based on driving and looking in the rear view mirror not a great idea . you need to have a comprhensive plan in place that allows for the spending of principal and not just the fact you will always survive on dividends .
That is one good rear view mirror

Because if I look at data from 1871 till today I would only have problems with 2 years 1917 and 1931. Looks like good bet to me.

For great majority of time dividends grow faster then inflation. So I would in fact have more real money each year. That table I provided is in inflation adjusted real money.

I am not arguing that such approach will not require LOT of money but will also result in extreme simplicity. Investing can be as simple or as difficult as we choose. Simplicity fits me well.
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 12:31 PM   #189
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,204
Also, if I'm not allowed to look into the rear view mirror as an indication of what might lie ahead, there is hardly anything to go on.

Too much fog in the front windshield ..
__________________
Totoro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 01:39 PM   #190
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
For great majority of time dividends grow faster then inflation. So I would in fact have more real money each year. That table I provided is in inflation adjusted real money.
I suppose a dividend investor could take any dividend growth beyond inflation and put it into an account for the "down years." But, then that invested money would become "principal" and therefore verboten and entirely off limits for any kind of spending. So, to the dividend-only "true believer" the money must be spent in the year received, no "smoothing" with an extra pot allowed else risk violating the rules (or getting into some mental gymnastics over why >this< dividend money is different from dividend money received before retirement).

The arbitrary "fencing" of money in a dividend-only outlook would be very restrictive, for me. If my dividends were cut by 25% but my portfolio were much larger in real terms than when I started investing, I would definitely dive into that "bigger than when I started" pile of money to keep comfortable. That's what the money is for, and if that bigger pile of money is insufficient (at some later point in my retirement), then I truly had no business retiring in the first place. But, we all get to make our own choices.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 01:49 PM   #191
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Yes the complete fencing is not efficient for numerous reasons.

Like what if you retire at 50 and can not touch 1-2 million in IRA's and 401k's? How do you get to dividend yield from that pile?

How do you withdraw in such way so you can get Obamacare Subsidies? (At least some years). How do you handle minimal withdrawals from 401k's and IRA's after you are 70?

But if you treat Roth accounts, IRA's, 410k's, brokerage accounts as one big pile from which you spend dividend generated by entire pile it can kinda be done.....
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 01:57 PM   #192
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totoro View Post
Also, if I'm not allowed to look into the rear view mirror as an indication of what might lie ahead, there is hardly anything to go on.

Too much fog in the front windshield ..
If you are using Firecalc, I think the question to ask yourself is 100 years of U.S. investing history a large enough dataset to be able to be able to predict the next 50 years with a 100% confidence factor? Can you predict the results of a third flip of a coin based on the results of the previous two flips?

The Triumph of the Optimists authors looked across 16 countries to try to get a bigger dataset:

“Equities continue to have an important role in long-term portfolios. However, their prospective returns are lower than the performance that many investors project, while their risk is higher than many investors appreciate. Investors who assume that favorable equity returns can be relied on in the long term or that stocks are safe so long as they are held for 20 years are optimists. Their optimism is irrational.”
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 05:23 PM   #193
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,705
Random thoughts. Pun intended. Coin flips are not equivalent to market results. The next coin flip knows nothing of previous coin flips.
__________________
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 06:08 PM   #194
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
If you are using Firecalc, I think the question to ask yourself is 100 years of U.S. investing history a large enough dataset to be able to be able to predict the next 50 years with a 100% confidence factor? Can you predict the results of a third flip of a coin based on the results of the previous two flips? ....
If you have 100 years of data you have 50 fifty year periods, not two.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 06:52 PM   #195
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
“Equities continue to have an important role in long-term portfolios. However, their prospective returns are lower than the performance that many investors project, while their risk is higher than many investors appreciate. Investors who assume that favorable equity returns can be relied on in the long term or that stocks are safe so long as they are held for 20 years are optimists. Their optimism is irrational.”
Wow, what a depressing article. That said, for a lot of folks, what are the alternatives? Cash? TIPS?

I'm choosing to be optimistic but conservative in my estimates. While a 6% real return might be too optimistic, using negative to 0% return just seems too depressing. I'm using 3% real for my projections otherwise, I might just stay out of the market altogether.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-16-2015, 11:07 PM   #196
Recycles dryer sheets
Aeowyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Scotts Hill, TN
Posts: 105
I think I'll take some comfort in the Bogle stock return predictions based on how conservative they have historically been. I took the graph below from the Boglehead's Conference 15 October 2015 page 19 (http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-c...ds-14-2015.pdf). I added the red line which would represent where the Bogle prediction was equal to the actual return. The vast majority of 10 year returns exceed the Bogle prediction by quite a bit.

I assume the black line that is in the graph represents a linear fit to the data points. That tells me on average a Bogle prediction of 6% should generate an actual return of ~11%. Sounds good to me - also sounds in line with historical average returns. Even after allowing for 4% for inflation and fees, that still gets a real investor return of 7%. So I'm not quite sure why Bogle is so outraged about pensions using 7% as their growth estimate.
Attached Images
File Type: gif BoglePredictions.gif (19.8 KB, 16 views)
__________________
Quit my J.O.B to become a farmer/rancher - December 2011
Now working part time from home on contract to support prior employer.
Aeowyn is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-17-2015, 12:14 AM   #197
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
Wow, what a depressing article. That said, for a lot of folks, what are the alternatives? Cash? TIPS?
Alternatives are worse. That's why Bogle said one needs to stay invested.

Quote:
I'm choosing to be optimistic but conservative in my estimates. While a 6% real return might be too optimistic, using negative to 0% return just seems too depressing. I'm using 3% real for my projections otherwise, I might just stay out of the market altogether.
Who said negative to zero return? Bogle said 6% nominal, unless we have P/E reversion then it would be less.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-17-2015, 01:22 AM   #198
Recycles dryer sheets
Aeowyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Scotts Hill, TN
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Who said negative to zero return? Bogle said 6% nominal, unless we have P/E reversion then it would be less.
Bogle did. 6% is the gross stock return. If you have 50/50 stock/bond portfolio gross return is 4.5% Then after subtracting 2% for inflation, either 1.5% (active fund costs) or 0.05% (index fund costs), 1.5% for investor behavior, and 0.5% for taxes....
__________________
Quit my J.O.B to become a farmer/rancher - December 2011
Now working part time from home on contract to support prior employer.
Aeowyn is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-17-2015, 01:33 AM   #199
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
I found the paper where bogle actually describes his methodology used to generate graph posted above: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie It's behind a paywall but available free with a trial registration.

To answer my earlier questions in this thread about how he generated his numbers, he uses the initial dividend yield and trailing 10 year average for earnings growth. His also assumes that P/E will revert to the prior 30-year average.

I will note that he used rolling windows on a monthly basis. I think monthly is poor choice as this greatly inflates the number of data points on the graph and makes his model seem much stronger than can be justified statistically (because of the heavy amount of overlap, the data points on the graph aren't anywhere near independent, etc. etc.).

In his paper, he also redoes his experiment from 1915-2015. Here he obtains an R^2 = 0.44 which is much lower but inline with experimental results for Schiller PE10. I can buy that Bogle's model is roughly as good as Schiller PE but I had hard time accepting an R^2 of 0.65 (which I think is too good to be true).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeowyn View Post
I assume the black line that is in the graph represents a linear fit to the data points. That tells me on average a Bogle prediction of 6% should generate an actual return of ~11%.
If you look at Bogle's graph for a bigger dataset (1915-2014) you can see that this relationship no longer holds and a Bogle prediction of 6% yields an actual return centered around 6%. The problem is that 1990-2014 is such a short time period that you can get a lot of noise and spurious results.
Attached Images
File Type: png bogle-1915-2014.png (335.7 KB, 15 views)
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-17-2015, 02:19 AM   #200
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeowyn View Post
Bogle did. 6% is the gross stock return. If you have 50/50 stock/bond portfolio gross return is 4.5% Then after subtracting 2% for inflation, either 1.5% (active fund costs) or 0.05% (index fund costs), 1.5% for investor behavior, and 0.5% for taxes....
Inflation can't be helped, but other subtractions from return can. In fact, one can squander even a 10% market return if he is not watching for these pitfalls.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How I prepare my budget & forecast - what about you? dex FIRE and Money 16 10-15-2008 10:34 PM
Real estate market forecast by state Tiger Other topics 6 01-02-2008 11:18 AM
florida real estate forecast lazygood4nothinbum FIRE and Money 5 12-31-2007 03:49 PM
GMO 7-Year Asset Class Return Forecast Spanky FIRE and Money 2 01-02-2006 09:43 AM
SmartMoney Mid-year Forecast Spanky FIRE and Money 21 06-14-2005 04:48 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:23 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.