Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-09-2013, 03:11 PM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Understood. However right now I have less than 10% in deferred annuities, so it does not really impact my cash. I also understand that when I do buy annuities when I turn 80 for example, my capital will go down. My model takes this into consideration also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Oby, you do understand that the payment your receive from an annuity is composed largely of the principal (the amount you paid the insurance company for the annuity)? So by using annuities you are spending your principal.
__________________

__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
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 02-09-2013, 03:14 PM   #102
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Net of inflation, but very, very low. Either I go back to some part time hours or locum tenens or just spend less if inflation goes up. I will adapt as time goes by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Net of inflation?
__________________

__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:25 PM   #103
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: 42,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
Net of inflation, but very, very low. Either I go back to some part time hours or locum tenens or just spend less if inflation goes up. I will adapt as time goes by.
+1

I think your reluctance to retire now is based on solid financial concerns. Better to work a few more years if you have no investments with a chance of keeping up with inflation and your only options after age 80 are food stamps or returning to work.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:28 PM   #104
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex in Virginia View Post
My IRA (retirement) portfolio is in high-dividend stocks and high-yield bonds.
As a whole, the portfolio throws off an 8% annual income stream, which I intend to start withdrawing next year to fund living expenses and "fun spending." I would not have to draw down any principal to cover living expenses until and unless my portfolio income yield deteriorated below 3% per year due to dividend reductions and/or bond defaults.

So, is my current withdrawal rate 8% or is it 0%? I think the latter.

Alex in Virginia
Your withdrawal rate is 8%.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:31 PM   #105
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: 42,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Your withdrawal rate is 8%.
+1
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:31 PM   #106
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Oby, you do understand that the payment your receive from an annuity is composed largely of the principal (the amount you paid the insurance company for the annuity)? So by using annuities you are spending your principal.
Part of what the insurance company is returning to the annuity holder in payments each year is their principal, but the annuity holder doesn't have to worry about the "spending down the principal" part during their lifetime, because the insurance company will cover any shortfall.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:42 PM   #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: 42,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Part of what the insurance company is returning to the annuity holder in payments each year is their principal, but the annuity holder doesn't have to worry about the "spending down the principal" part during their lifetime, because the insurance company will cover any shortfall.
True.

The point I was making is a slug of the money the insurance co pays you when you buy an annuity is the money you paid them - return of principal. So anyone who states they don't plan to spend down their principal in retirement - but will live on dividends, interest and annuity payments - is confused.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:51 PM   #108
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
In my case it will be a mix. I will only buy annuities say every 5 or 10 years in retirement up to the age of 90, leaving a cash nest egg I feel happy and safe about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
True.

The point I was making is a slug of the money the insurance co pays you when you buy an annuity is the money you paid them - return of principal. So anyone who states they don't plan to spend down their principal in retirement - but will live on dividends, interest and annuity payments - is confused.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:03 PM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
The Morningstar article today also admits that additional stock will also help, since the problem their talking about is low bond returns. Just sayin'...
They also assume:
  • a 40% equity portfolio.
  • intermediate-term US Government Bond Index for the bond portion.
  • 1% lost annually to fund fees.
  • equity returns over the next 30 years to be 2% below the long-term historical US average return.

It's a little difficult to feel that worried about the affect of low government bond yields after a year with a 13% return on a 53eq/47fi diversified portfolio, but of course there are good years, and there are bad years.

These studies tend to use very restricted asset classes, and it is specifically the US government bond index funds that are yielding super low at the moment.

I think someone mentioned there were super low government bond yields in the 1940s, yet those aren't the years that break the Trinity model.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:06 PM   #110
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
True.

The point I was making is a slug of the money the insurance co pays you when you buy an annuity is the money you paid them - return of principal. So anyone who states they don't plan to spend down their principal in retirement - but will live on dividends, interest and annuity payments - is confused.
Maybe (about the confusion) - but I give them a pass in this case since they don't have to worry about running out of annuity payments as long as they are alive.

Of course whatever principal they "spend down" by passing it along to the insurance company is principal they won't be carefully preserving for their heirs......

And then we aren't even getting into the annuity payments keeping up with inflation bit....
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:23 PM   #111
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Maybe (about the confusion) - but I give them a pass in this case since they don't have to worry about running out of annuity payments as long as they are alive.

Of course whatever principal they "spend down" by passing it along to the insurance company is principal they won't be carefully preserving for their heirs......

And then we aren't even getting into the annuity payments keeping up with inflation bit....
+1
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 08:22 PM   #112
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
obgyn65 -- thanks for clarifying your approach.

With 100% fixed assets, I personally would consider it "not spending the principal" if my return > (inflation + WR). At the present, this is would be very difficult to achieve (without substantial pensions/ss/annuities) but things can always change.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 08:56 PM   #113
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex in Virginia View Post
My IRA (retirement) portfolio is in high-dividend stocks and high-yield bonds.
As a whole, the portfolio throws off an 8% annual income stream, which I intend to start withdrawing next year to fund living expenses and "fun spending." I would not have to draw down any principal to cover living expenses until and unless my portfolio income yield deteriorated below 3% per year due to dividend reductions and/or bond defaults.

So, is my current withdrawal rate 8% or is it 0%? I think the latter.

Alex in Virginia
FIRECalc and the 4% rule use total returns. Dividends and distributions are reinvested if no withdrawals are taken, dividends and distributions are counted towards the withdrawal percentage if they are not reinvested. For the purpose of these calculations, your WR is 8%. They also make assumptions about your portfolio, so you will have to hope you have something different that works.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:01 PM   #114
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Figure 2 from the Morningstar paper co-authored by Dr Pfau was interesting. There aren't many outliers or a wide dispersion in this sample: If the current govt bond yield is 1.5%, historically the average annual compounded 10 year govt bond return has been somewhere between 1% and 3%. That's a sample covering 1930 to 2011 and bonds have never done better than that over the following decade when they have the yields we see at present.

Yes, these are intermediate term govt bonds, but this is probably an important thing to consider as we decide how much of our allocation should be in bonds right now. Of course, this time it could be different
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 03:07 AM   #115
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Figure 2 from the Morningstar paper co-authored by Dr Pfau was interesting. There aren't many outliers or a wide dispersion in this sample: If the current govt bond yield is 1.5%, historically the average annual compounded 10 year govt bond return has been somewhere between 1% and 3%. That's a sample covering 1930 to 2011 and bonds have never done better than that over the following decade when they have the yields we see at present.

Yes, these are intermediate term govt bonds, but this is probably an important thing to consider as we decide how much of our allocation should be in bonds right now. Of course, this time it could be different
Yes it could be different, but money is it will not be. I think this is one of the most important papers in the last year and well worth reading..

Intuitively I think most of us long time members understood that horribly low bond yields made the the 4% SWR far less certain. The key thing that papers identified is putting a pretty precise projection 1.8% for the return of intermediate bonds at today's yields, with a very narrow band.

We can double check this prediction by looking at the yield of 10 year TIPs -.5% look at the average last 3 years of inflation of 2.3% add the two together and we also arrive at 1.8%.

The basis of the 4% SWR working is that bonds/CD yield 5-6% with relatively low volatility and stocks average 9-10% with huge volatility year to year. If inflation is 3% (relatively stable other than 70s early 80s)
Then a 50/50 portfolio get 2.5-3% return from bonds and 4.5-5.0% from equities= 7% to 8% minus inflation of 3% = 4%-5%. Throw in a dallop of small cap and other equities beyond the S&P and the average real return is north of 5% which is why many FIRECALC runs end up leaving a pile of money after 30 years even with a 4% withdrawal rate. Of course the sequence of returns is a huge factor on survival.

Knowing that sequence of returns for the bond portion of your portfolio is very likely to be significantly (~3.7%) below average for the next decade, this lower the SWR from 4% to 2.8% for a 40% equity portfolio and even lower for those with little or no equities. A huge reduction for those in retirement or alternatively it means you need to save 40% more for those in the accumulation phase.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 03:54 AM   #116
Full time employment: Posting here.
gcgang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 924
While I understand conceptually how maintaining a constant inflation adjusted withdrawal works, and have run the MC simulations with various AA and spending levels to obtain a high degree of confidence that I will be OK, after 40+ years of saving, I wonder if I will ever be comfortable with depleting principal.
__________________
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. YB
gcgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:16 AM   #117
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: 42,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
Knowing that sequence of returns for the bond portion of your portfolio is very likely to be significantly (~3.7%) below average for the next decade, this lower the SWR from 4% to 2.8% for a 40% equity portfolio and even lower for those with little or no equities.
Once again, shouldn't there be an additional qualifier to this statement to include "for those who are paying 1% to investment fees" ?
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:29 AM   #118
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Once again, shouldn't there be an additional qualifier to this statement to include "for those who are paying 1% to investment fees" ?
Yes I guess so. Meaning that those fortunate enough to Ameriprise investment advisers might as well just figure on working until they die so they can fund their advisers retirement.

Oh were suggesting that it might be a little less grime for those of us who have low expense ratios on our investments.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:36 AM   #119
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: 42,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
Yes I guess so. Meaning that those fortunate enough to Ameriprise investment advisers might as well just figure on working until they die so they can fund their advisers retirement.

Oh were suggesting that it might be a little less grime for those of us who have low expense ratios on our investments.
Yes to both the above.

There are so many folks who already think a 4% WR is too optimistic and say they will go with less than 3.5%. I fear the 2.8% number will send them into deep depression so I think it important the 1% fee be highlighted.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:13 AM   #120
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
while the effect of fees certainly count the problem is they are not in a vacuum by themselves and there are so many other paramters that count so much more that can make that extra 1% into not such a bad thing .

the best analogy is the person who hondles the lowest possible price on a car, then pounds the salesman into the ground on the lowest finance terms and buys the car knowing he got the lowest deal out there.

then he sells the car back to the dealer at a wholesale price.

in the mean time grandma paid a higher price,higher finance terms but sold the car at a better price and beat the pants off mr lowest price.

the point is getting everything down and dirty does not count much if you sold and left money on the table. they cancel each other out.

i am more interested in how my portfolio is doing overall. are all the parts playing nice? do they work together as a team?

i have had combo's of funds at times which beat the markets working together and did not beat them individually.

case in point i used fidelity export and multi-national fund when the dollar was weak. as it strengthened i moved more to a fund with a manager that weighted for a stronger dollar.

the 2 together beat the s&p 500 but individualy they did not.

while i watch fees and calculate fees in my performance i am not so fixated on them as many bogleheads are.

that 1% advisor fee looks bad in the calculation but it may actually improve things if you are getting something for that money.

the problem is there is no way to calculate that in advance so a 1% advisor fee just drops the success rate but in reality as things play out it may increase it.

i looked at wades figures with the difference expenses added back in but the problem is the indexes used do not reflect any extra alpha gained as it is all based on indexes..

its hard to explain but i think you can follow my logic. the numbers are working off mr lowest price going in but don't consider down the road grandma had alot better results but those results are not in the calculation .
__________________

__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
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


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:57 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.