Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
This is why when I run firecalc , I use the 100% chance of surving
Old 11-05-2015, 08:10 AM   #101
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: NYC
Posts: 52
This is why when I run firecalc , I use the 100% chance of surving

I was ready retired when I found this site, in my under informed calculations I figured I could withdraw 5% for life and still adjust for inflation. Well I have come to find out that with a 80/20 portfolio which is what I have, it's more like 3%. When I retired a 5 % withdrawal was way more than I needed. That's a good thing because it very well might have bankrupted me, so based on his numbers I think 3% withdrawal will be just fine for the next decade. Personally I haven't taken out a dime since I retired my pension is way more than my living expenses I detailed that in another-post . This is why in my opinion early retirement is for those that certainly have the means to weather the storms.
%
__________________

__________________
retiredinnyc 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 11-05-2015, 08:57 AM   #102
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredinnyc View Post
I was ready retired when I found this site, in my under informed calculations I figured I could withdraw 5% for life and still adjust for inflation. Well I have come to find out that with a 80/20 portfolio which is what I have, it's more like 3%. When I retired a 5 % withdrawal was way more than I needed. That's a good thing because it very well might have bankrupted me, so based on his numbers I think 3% withdrawal will be just fine for the next decade. Personally I haven't taken out a dime since I retired my pension is way more than my living expenses I detailed that in another-post . This is why in my opinion early retirement is for those that certainly have the means to weather the storms.
%
Totally depends on when you retired. The 3% figure is more like worst case so far. Granted, right now, we're probably in one of the relatively bad cases. That said, I agree, those undertaking super early retirement (particularly in their 30s and 40s) should probably have a large cushion in their withdrawal rate or their budget, or be flexible about going back to work.

__________________

__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 09:06 AM   #103
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: NYC
Posts: 52
Yup, worse case scenario I don't want to find out my withdrawal rate was good 95 % of the time and I'm in the 5% that went bust, then what
__________________
retiredinnyc is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 09:20 AM   #104
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredinnyc View Post
?
My issue was him calling other people dumb just because they have a different opinion on where the market/world is heading over the next decade. Nobody really knows, so the person calling others dumb should maybe think twice.
__________________
Fermion is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 09:46 AM   #105
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: NYC
Posts: 52
Seems to me you called him dumb, and insinuated he is getting dementia or Alzheimer's , did you think twice?
__________________
retiredinnyc is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 09:58 AM   #106
Moderator
rodi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,796
Please folks... Hot topic has been enabled. That means you are reminded to stay within the community rules with every post. Refrain from calling each other names or getting in tiffs.

Thank you.
__________________
Retired June 2014. No longer an enginerd - now I'm just a nerd.
micro pensions 7%, rental income 18%
rodi is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 10:11 AM   #107
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodi View Post
Please folks... Hot topic has been enabled. That means you are reminded to stay within the community rules with every post. Refrain from calling each other names or getting in tiffs.

Thank you.
Translation: Take it outside!
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 10:25 AM   #108
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 REWahoo View Post
Translation: Take it outside!

Ok, dinosaur..... That was a successful strategy back in the day. Now it will just get you a lawsuit for suggesting it. I actually was mad enough my last year working to suggest it. The offer wasnt accepted, but now 5 years later he was one of the few workers still there I routinely converse with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
PE could also come down with tax law changes
Old 11-05-2015, 10:38 AM   #109
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Atlanta suburbs
Posts: 347
PE could also come down with tax law changes

I have a great deal of respect for Mr Bogle, as well as Mr Shiller, but it seems to me that high PE could become lower in the future with tax law changes. And nobody can really forecast tax law changes.

PE ratios don't HAVE to come down only due to lower prices.

Dividends and capital gains are treated differently. Dividends have higher taxes, so that is one reason dividends have come down from a historical 4% to a current 2%. With that money not going out as dividends, the money is (well maybe is) instead used for stock buy backs resulting in higher prices and higher PE ratios.

So it is entirely possible for tax laws to change treating dividends just like capital gains, resulting in higher dividends being paid out, lesser stock buybacks occurring and the end result being a gradual lowering of PE ratios.
__________________
DEC-1982 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 11:31 AM   #110
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
One of the reasons cited for the P/E expansion in the period of 1983-2000 was that interest rate was dropping. As bond yields dropped, stocks could have a higher P/E as they competed for investors' money. Another reason that has been suggested is that the risk premium for stocks dropped due to more investors getting comfortable with the volatility and willing to pay more for equities.

With the interest rate rising, both bonds and stocks will face pressure. The P/E ratio may contract. Bogle and Shiller agree on this risk, and the remaining question is how much it will contract. We will have to wait to see. It of course depends on how much the interest rate will rise, and that is something nobody knows for sure.
__________________
"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 11-05-2015, 12:55 PM   #111
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,325
Here is another article today from Marketwatch on the same subject, with a summary version of Bogle's recent comments mixed in with some other financial talking heads' forecasts:

John Bogle says you won't make much money from stocks - MarketWatch

"Academic studies have shown that the Shiller PE has greater statistical validity than a conventional PE at forecasting future returns. One year’s worth of earnings can be misleading. Nevertheless, Bogle and the value mavens are now in agreement about likely future returns."
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 01:09 PM   #112
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 daylatedollarshort View Post
And I also agree with Bogle that it is likely that "a balanced portfolio (roughly half in stocks and half in bonds) should return around 3.5% for the next decade. Adjusted for inflation or in “real” terms, Bogle thinks a balanced portfolio will return 1.5%, barely increasing purchasing power."

The above return is not that great, and barely above the I-bonds that I have. But I am not a buy-and-holder, and have been looking to squeeze a bit more out of stocks by trading or writing covered calls.
__________________
"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 11-05-2015, 03:30 PM   #113
Full time employment: Posting here.
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by petershk View Post
Re: international.
I think the point he makes (and others) is that the country of origin of a company is no longer a good indicator of international exposure and many of the biggest US companies derive much if their growth and revenue from those growth markets.
Yes, that is exactly the point that Mr. Bogel and a lot of others make, to the extent that it seems accepted wisdom. However, there are counterarguments. Burt Malkiel in A Random Walk said there is no evidence this was true. More recently, and ironically enough, a Vanguard analyst on the Vanguard podcast explained how major US companies hedge their own exchange rate risks in the currency markets for their international earnings. Individual investors buying international stocks are subject to exchange rate risk, however, so one is not the same as the other. The world is constantly changing in unpredictable ways so I still like the international index exposure in the VG Life Strategy funds.
__________________
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 05:21 PM   #114
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
So if I live of off dividend yield which is more then 2% then according to Bogle I will have less (real) money at the end of the decade then I have now. (100% in equities)

I have a hard time to believe that. I think he is too negative. Even in 2000-2010 that was not case if you had a mix of small, mid. large cap plus international exposure.

Humbug
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 05:28 PM   #115
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
So if I live of off dividend yield which is more then 2% then according to Bogle I will have less (real) money at the end of the decade then I have now. (100% in equities) . . . Humbug
Dividends are a significant portion of the historic total return of equities. If they aren't reinvested, then the only way for a stock portfolio to be worth more at the end of 10 years is for their share prices to have grown by more than inflation. That's failed to happen over plenty of 10 year periods, and is more likely when starting with high valuations...like we have right now. Not so much humbug.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 05:37 PM   #116
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Dividends are a significant portion of the historic total return of equities. If they aren't reinvested, then the only way for a stock portfolio to be worth more at the end of 10 years is for their share prices to have grown by more than inflation. That's failed to happen over plenty of 10 year periods, and is more likely when starting with high valuations...like we have right now. Not so much humbug.
S&P 500 Return Calculator - Don't Quit Your Day Job...

I see it happening way LESS often then coming up positive.

Now this is only S&P 500. Create mix adding Small/Mid Cap plus international and likelihood drops even more.

But you are 100% correct stating that dividends are significant portion.....

Historically world economies grow way faster then inflation. You think USA in 1900 was worth USA in 2000? We are with 1000's of times more now
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 06:13 PM   #117
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
The period of 2000-2009 was particularly bad, because it was a peak-to-trough interval for the market. The S&P returned -0.99% anualized in nominal terms, and -3.42% annualized after inflation (inflation was 2.43%). In the same period, Vanguard Total Bond VBMFX returns 6.06% nominal annualized, or 3.63% in real terms. A 50/50 porfolio would be flat after inflation!

Let's look at the period of 2000-2015, which is better because it is nearly peak-to-peak for the market. VFINX returned 4.15%/yr nominal, or 1.86%/yr in real terms (inflation was 2.29%). VBMFX returned 5.45%/yr nominal, or 3.16%/yr real. A 50/50 portfolio would grow 2.51%. If you draw 2%, your stash will barely beat inflation, if we ignore the sequence of returns.

So, the last 15-year period was not that great, except for accumulators who got a chance to buy low. But a retiree has no money to buy, other than some chances to do rebalancing. When you have no other income, everything changes.

And then, looking ahead, interest rate is rising although we hope it will not be much. Still, it would apply pressure to bonds and stocks both. That's why Bogle has repeatedly warned that the future is gloomy, and pension fund managers are sticking their head in sand when they plan on having 7.5% nominal.

Looking back at what Bogle said in the link provided by DLDS, he said future stock return may be 4% nominal, and bonds only 3% nominal, with inflation of 2%. This gives a 50/50 portfolio a return of only 3.5% nominal, and 1.5% real. And note that he now thinks P/E reversion is more likely. Has Shiller recently convinced him?

Anyway, why doesn't one then go 100% stock to get 4% nominal, and after a WR of 2% can still match inflation of 2%? Personally, I don't do that because I like to be able to rebalance to buy low/sell high. We should embrace market volatility then, because if the market stays placid with lousy returns we are toast.
__________________
"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 11-05-2015, 07:26 PM   #118
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
That's why Bogle has repeatedly warned that the future is gloomy, and pension fund managers are sticking their head in sand when they plan on having 7.5% nominal.
In fairness, the 7.5% nominal assumption is usually based on a 20 to 25 year span, not just one decade.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 08:15 PM   #119
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion View Post
Ok, I will play. Let us step back 10 years instead. It is 2005. Who saw Tesla becoming worth nearly half the market cap of Ford? Who thought Nokia would be a 2 bit rubber boot company and Apple would be nearing a trillion dollar market cap? Radio Shack bankrupt? (Ok, I give you that one...everyone saw that coming). Uber taking over taxi cab driving? Netflix being worth twice the value of CBS?

Yeah, if you can see 10 years ahead, you are much better than I am.
It's hard to predict the unwritten future. Bogle is no Nostradamus. In 10 years, an advance race of aliens could land on earth and make slaves of all of us or they could wipe out poverty and bring enlightenment to everyone. Who knows. And maybe in 10 years, oil could still be cheap, and Tesla will run out of business. I guess we should just stop worrying and be happy.



__________________
cyber888 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2015, 08:26 PM   #120
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 hnzw_rui View Post
In fairness, the 7.5% nominal assumption is usually based on a 20 to 25 year span, not just one decade.
Looking across history as well as 16 countries, The Triumph of the Optimists authors research found that stocks for the long run has been a correct assumption, but that long run may be 40+ years. And, statistically, I'm not likely to live that long. This is not to say stocks aren't a good bet, it it just that financial writers like Bodie and Bernstein say not to bet the money you need for retirement essentials like food and health care on them. Only bet what you can afford to lose.
__________________

__________________
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 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 03:43 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.