Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-13-2016, 09:28 PM   #21
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: 16,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Kirkpatrick ignored rebalancing in his first blast, which significantly reduced the utility of his findings (unless, for some reason, a person would want to depend entirely on withdrawals to keep their allocation in line. That makes sense only if a person is consumed with worry over cap gains taxes or doesn't have access to a tIRA, Roth IRA, or a 401K).

His new effort still gives too little attention to rebalancing, as far as I can tell. If you are going to bring your portfolio back into balance, then which "withdrawal strategy" (his term for deciding which asset class to draw from) used makes almost no difference. He's only "discovered" that, without rebalancing, the high-return asset class (stocks) will grow to a larger share of the overall portfolio over time, and that this will improve returns (at the risk of higher overall volatility).

Are there a lot of people who don't rebalance their portfolio as an independent step from taking their withdrawals?
Not us.

But after skimming a couple of the papers I'm kind of intrigued with the idea of only taking withdrawal from winners without further rebalancing, and allowing the gradual allocation drift. Would simplify and be a little more tax efficient as you note for us having most of our investments in taxable accounts.

Probably wouldn't work quite the way he has modeled, though, because right now all our mutual fund distributions are taken in cash and this is usually enough to fund the withdrawal. But then cap gains dists tend to go to zero after a rough market patch, and then get increasingly large as market rallies go on year after year. So maybe close enough anyway.

Hmmm - I did let things drift up a bit after 2002 and then got bit by 2008. Maybe I won't be able to do that after all.......
__________________

__________________
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
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 03-14-2016, 07:05 PM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
dtbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Madison
Posts: 752
Man I'm glad I have a pension and SS that will cover all essentials even if I blow all my investments. That way, I just take 4% out and don't have to worry about all this CAPE stuff and other things I can't get my head around.

You could drive yourself mad researching all this stuff. Once you guys figure out the best plan, let me know LOL!
__________________

__________________
Wild Bill shoulda taken more out of his IRA when he could have. . . .
dtbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 07:56 PM   #23
Full time employment: Posting here.
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
So, when is one of these big brained economist types going to do a study on a SWR for a 50 year retirement? Or at least 40 years. I think they don't take us early retirement sorts into consideration.
Here is a good one: http://www.madfientist.com/safe-withdrawal-rate/
__________________
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 09:41 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
Just run FIRECalc using 40 or 50 years as the retirement period. No need to give away your email.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 09:46 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtbach View Post
Man I'm glad I have a pension and SS that will cover all essentials even if I blow all my investments. That way, I just take 4% out and don't have to worry about all this CAPE stuff and other things I can't get my head around.

You could drive yourself mad researching all this stuff. Once you guys figure out the best plan, let me know LOL!
There is no "best plan". There are a large number of possible outcomes with various probabilities and an enormous set of variables, many of which are unknown. If the statistics of past markets are relevant to future markets we can take an educated guess at how not to run out of money in retirement, but I get the impression that you know that already.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 10:52 PM   #26
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtbach View Post
Man I'm glad I have a pension and SS that will cover all essentials even if I blow all my investments. That way, I just take 4% out and don't have to worry about all this CAPE stuff and other things I can't get my head around.

You could drive yourself mad researching all this stuff. Once you guys figure out the best plan, let me know LOL!

Yes. Good for you ... To have a pension and SS... Why even bother reading this thread...

As for the rest of us now FIREd and the coming generations who are on the path... where both a DB pension and 100% SS are both about as mythical as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, these withdraw studies are insightful and will become more and more relevant ... Especially as various taxation and retirement account and SS claiming rules change /shift / ebb and flow ...

Yes. Maddening. But hugely important for many.
__________________
papadad111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 10:57 PM   #27
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
So, when is one of these big brained economist types going to do a study on a SWR for a 50 year retirement? Or at least 40 years. I think they don't take us early retirement sorts into consideration.

+1.

My conclusion is to discount the suggested safe WR of 25 or 30 years by at least 25% for 40 years and 40% for 50 year duration.

For 50 year duration , withdraw no more than current broad market dividend yield OR take the 10 year treasury rate + 25 to 50 basis points.

Both numbers approximate a perpetuity which is what's needed for a truly safe 50 year duration.
__________________
papadad111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 11:25 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by papadad111 View Post
Yes. Good for you ... To have a pension and SS... Why even bother reading this thread...

As for the rest of us now FIREd and the coming generations who are on the path... where both a DB pension and 100% SS are both about as mythical as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, these withdraw studies are insightful and will become more and more relevant ... Especially as various taxation and retirement account and SS claiming rules change /shift / ebb and flow ...

Yes. Maddening. But hugely important for many.
Maybe a little tone deaf? Hey, I also have a pension and will have SS but I still like thrashing this stuff around. I thought I'd be over it by now but apparently I cannot give it up. Keep it coming. I'm still going to need the money
__________________
razztazz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 01:18 AM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
But after skimming a couple of the papers I'm kind of intrigued with the idea of only taking withdrawal from winners without further rebalancing, and allowing the gradual allocation drift. Would simplify and be a little more tax efficient as you note for us having most of our investments in taxable accounts.

Probably wouldn't work quite the way he has modeled, though, because right now all our mutual fund distributions are taken in cash and this is usually enough to fund the withdrawal. But then cap gains dists tend to go to zero after a rough market patch, and then get increasingly large as market rallies go on year after year. So maybe close enough anyway.

Hmmm - I did let things drift up a bit after 2002 and then got bit by 2008. Maybe I won't be able to do that after all.......
Based on historical returns (US, not Japan), it's basically the same as rising equity glidepath. Quite a tax efficient method way to do it though. Planning on doing something similar although thinking of starting with a 30/70 allocation to mitigate sequence of return risks during the first 5-10 years. Will probably cap equities at 70-80% though. I doubt I'd have the nerve to let it drift even higher.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 04:27 AM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
So, when is one of these big brained economist types going to do a study on a SWR for a 50 year retirement? Or at least 40 years. I think they don't take us early retirement sorts into consideration.
My small brain guess: Take world GDP growth for the next 50 years as proxy for earnings growth, add 2% of dividends (roughly the current dividend yield).

Maybe make small adjustments (up or down 1%) for taxes, concentration of wealth.

Done.
__________________
Totoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 07:07 AM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by papadad111 View Post
+1.

My conclusion is to discount the suggested safe WR of 25 or 30 years by at least 25% for 40 years and 40% for 50 year duration.

For 50 year duration , withdraw no more than current broad market dividend yield OR take the 10 year treasury rate + 25 to 50 basis points.

Both numbers approximate a perpetuity which is what's needed for a truly safe 50 year duration.
That seems very conservative if you believe what drops out of FIRECalc. The 95% SWR for 30 years is 4%, for 40 years it's 3.6% and for 50 years it's 3.4%.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 07:13 AM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
Based on historical returns (US, not Japan), it's basically the same as rising equity glidepath. Quite a tax efficient method way to do it though. Planning on doing something similar although thinking of starting with a 30/70 allocation to mitigate sequence of return risks during the first 5-10 years. Will probably cap equities at 70-80% though. I doubt I'd have the nerve to let it drift even higher.
I ER'ed two years ago with a 70/30 allocation. I have my expenses covered by a small pension and rent.....and then early SS in 8 years time......so I can afford to be aggressive and be on a "rising glide path". I've done some rebalancing and I reinvest dividends and plan to sell some winners if I need cash for large expenses.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Further withdrawal study results from Darrow Kirkpatrick of Can I Retire Yet?
Old 03-15-2016, 09:24 AM   #33
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,135
Further withdrawal study results from Darrow Kirkpatrick of Can I Retire Yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
That seems very conservative if you believe what drops out of FIRECalc. The 95% SWR for 30 years is 4%, for 40 years it's 3.6% and for 50 years it's 3.4%.

Yes. That conservatism is by design because I don't trust firecalc results without some skepticism.

For one The dataset that firecalc uses is only USA market data and the world economy is and will continue to become more global in nature versus history implying USA market behaviors may make a right hand turn versus history. Secondly, the longer duration cycles are limited of the 40 and 50 year variety. Far far less proven.

Go out 100 years and the safe withdraw rate grows to over 6 percent ...hmm...

Of course no one knows if they face a 40 year retirement or a 2 day retirement before the grim reaper. So it's a gamble what ever you decide

For me, assuming a very low WR in age 40s (as if a perpetuity) and slowly increasing WR in age 50s to what eventually becomes a "normal duration retirement (statistically speaking of course)" at age 55 or 60 along the lines of 3% for a 25-30 year retirement seems to make sense.

That approach reduces sequence of return risk, allows money to grow a bit longer if there is no sequence of returns event and may provide a pleasant upside for me as we grow older ...or leave a bigger pot to heirs which would be bad for us but good for them...
__________________

__________________
papadad111 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Darrow kirkpatrick on OMY rdy2go FIRE and Money 2 02-09-2016 10:36 AM
Further thoughts on converting a traditional IRA to a Roth. Ed_The_Gypsy FIRE and Money 27 12-07-2013 11:35 PM
Anyone Hear of Darrow Kirkpatrick? jdmorton FIRE and Money 5 02-18-2012 11:31 AM
Bernanke Sees Case for `Further Action' With Too-Low Inflation dex Other topics 14 10-17-2010 09:56 AM
Further on E trade Bank Pete FIRE and Money 6 04-01-2010 06:47 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.