Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
More new withdrawal schemes
Old 03-04-2014, 03:35 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,423
More new withdrawal schemes

JP Morgan's "dynamic" withdrawal system:

Rethinking the 4% retirement spending rule - Encore - MarketWatch

And linked from that blog post, a WSJ article about alternatives to the 4% spending rule:

Say Goodbye to the 4% Rule for Retirement - WSJ.com
__________________

__________________
explanade 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 03-04-2014, 07:14 PM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 892
From a quick read of the article, it sure looks like are cherry picking data to make a point.

Bengen used a 60/40 portfolio, why did they use 55/45? And why a fixed 3% for inflation over the same timeframe? Did the Bengen study do the same?

From the article:
If you had retired Jan. 1, 2000, with an initial 4% withdrawal rate and a portfolio of 55% stocks and 45% bonds rebalanced each month, with the first year's withdrawal amount increased by 3% a year for inflation, your portfolio would have fallen by a third through 2010, according to investment firm T. Rowe Price Group. And you would be left with only a 29% chance of making it through three decades, the firm estimates.
__________________

__________________
Eat, Drink and Be Merry.
tulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 10:36 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,423
I thought the second article was going to be tied to some service when they mentioned annuities.

But it's really not, like the first one which is referring to a JPM plan.
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 11:14 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Read all the articles, but it looks like this JPM scheme amounts to: You need to use an adviser to increase the risk in your portfolio, then you take out more than 4% on a sliding scale based on age, while absolutely counting on your adviser to zig and zag through any investment issues to maintain this high withdrawal rate. And the advisers better be very very good at what they do, because in addition to the high withdrawal rate you will pay the advisers a 2% fee.

A masterpiece of adviser marketing. "Better let us take care of all your complicated money. We're the experts." Really makes me mad to see such duplicity passed off as if it were useful factual journalism.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 09:04 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by growing_older View Post
Read all the articles, but it looks like this JPM scheme amounts to: You need to use an adviser to increase the risk in your portfolio, then you take out more than 4% on a sliding scale based on age, while absolutely counting on your adviser to zig and zag through any investment issues to maintain this high withdrawal rate. And the advisers better be very very good at what they do, because in addition to the high withdrawal rate you will pay the advisers a 2% fee.

A masterpiece of adviser marketing. "Better let us take care of all your complicated money. We're the experts." Really makes me mad to see such duplicity passed off as if it were useful factual journalism.
+1

The paper is here: https://www.jpmorganfunds.com/cm/Sat...=1323375360677

They compare their strategy to a pure 4% rule (i.e. no flexibility in withdrawals) and to a pure RMD rule.

Guess what, they conclude that if you stop occasionally and re-think what you're doing based on actual results, you can probably do better.

Scanning the paper, I did not see any comments on their assumptions regarding fees. People here would be interested in know how a DIY program that uses very low load funds would compare to JPM's program that probably has higher fees.

That said, some of us may want to look at the JPM paper and see if there are some ideas that we would want to include in our DIY approach. When I do that, I think that most of the ideas have already been discussed here, but it does provide an overview of some issues.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 10:00 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
In my working days, we'd go through times when we'd say: "gee, they're talking layoffs at work...maybe we should delay that car/boat/vacation/renovation purchase until things pick up again".

Other times, we'd say: "Hey, got a big bonus in the wings...let's party".

That is sort of how we apply/modify the 4% rule.
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 10:22 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,616
I don't do Investment, so Withdrawal is my game. Not a %, but whatever I need.

Just received a free bonus while waiting for DW at the dentist office. The March issue of Money Magazine... read the whole thing, and was very impressed.
A comprehensive analysis of "The New Retirement"... from asset allocation, to SS to a history of where the retirement money comes from, and predictions of where it should be in the future... both sides of the equation.
Also... lots of stuff about couples attitudes to retirement. VERY interesting.
One of the paragraphs mentioned a multi year recent history of the Vanguard Funds, with a return of 1.9% vs. 2.3% of DIY investing... but who knows?

Really worthwhile for me... Would be worth buying if I didn't get it for free...
here's a link:
Have enough money for the retirement life you want - Feb. 26, 2014

The magazine has charts and more info than the online recap.
__________________
imoldernu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 10:30 AM   #8
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 129
How about the lesser of 4% or

Using your nest-egg balance as of Dec. 31 of the previous year, you would look up your age in the IRS table and divide your account balance by the life expectancy given for that age
__________________
Refresher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 10:55 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,327
Wouldn't I bonds or a TIPS ladder even at zero real provide a 30 year safe withdrawal rate of 3.3%? I am not sure why people who weren't expecting more than 4% SWR wouldn't just do that instead of riskier and commission laden investments, but maybe I am missing something, looking at too short of a time horizon or have misplaced faith in the safety of government bonds.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 11:23 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
martyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bossier City
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
In my working days, we'd go through times when we'd say: "gee, they're talking layoffs at work...maybe we should delay that car/boat/vacation/renovation purchase until things pick up again".

Other times, we'd say: "Hey, got a big bonus in the wings...let's party".

That is sort of how we apply/modify the 4% rule.

Pretty much how mine will go, I would imagine.
__________________
martyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 11:52 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
Wouldn't I bonds or a TIPS ladder even at zero real provide a 30 year safe withdrawal rate of 3.3%? I am not sure why people who weren't expecting more than 4% SWR wouldn't just do that instead of riskier and commission laden investments, but maybe I am missing something, looking at too short of a time horizon or have misplaced faith in the safety of government bonds.
The JPM paper is talking about withdrawals rates above 5.0%.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 04:42 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refresher View Post
How about the lesser of 4% or

Using your nest-egg balance as of Dec. 31 of the previous year, you would look up your age in the IRS table and divide your account balance by the life expectancy given for that age
why bother with the irs tables. just use bob clyatts method.

look at your balance each year and take either 4% or if markets fell take 5% less then you did the year before, which ever is greater.

nice ,simple , and dynamic .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:45 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Mountains
Posts: 2,143
For me, now that I am comfortably in retirement, I believe I will continue to be fixated on this kind of puzzle while in reality I will spend what I want and my portfolio will continue to grow.
__________________
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 07:44 AM   #14
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 728
Boy I agree on the value of money magazine....get it for almost free.....I think it is 800 Delta frequent flyer miles. I have to add Warren Buffet's plan for his widow some day, which he guessed she would be about 70 when she becomes a widow.......her portfolio would be about 90% S&P 500 index fund.....didn't say what the other 10% would be. Now I know he would leave her enough to handle downturns but.......isn't simple better? And, why pay 2% when a simple solution would do. Also, WSJ had a story in their weekend edition, business section about high fees....they are going down.....it was on the front page.....sorry I didn't save it to give more info but they talked about a provider that built portfolios averaging .14% designed for the individual based on age, portfolio size etc. My good news is that we have enough....to live modestly on what we have invested conservatively......good day to all!
__________________
jerome len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:07 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome len View Post
Boy I agree on the value of money magazine....get it for almost free.....I think it is 800 Delta frequent flyer miles. I have to add Warren Buffet's plan for his widow some day, which he guessed she would be about 70 when she becomes a widow.......her portfolio would be about 90% S&P 500 index fund.....didn't say what the other 10% would be. Now I know he would leave her enough to handle downturns but.......isn't simple better? And, why pay 2% when a simple solution would do. Also, WSJ had a story in their weekend edition, business section about high fees....they are going down.....it was on the front page.....sorry I didn't save it to give more info but they talked about a provider that built portfolios averaging .14% designed for the individual based on age, portfolio size etc. My good news is that we have enough....to live modestly on what we have invested conservatively......good day to all!
Buffet said for the 10% his widow would be in bonds so she does not have to sell stocks on a downturn.

I guess I would be OK with $5.8 billions to wait out a market upturn.
__________________
Corporateburnout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:54 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
The JPM paper is talking about withdrawals rates above 5.0%.
There have been discussions of methods like this. The 4% was settled on as a Safe Withdrawal Rate because it worked in all the historic periods studied. But in a very large subset of historic period, higher withdrawal rates do just fine. If you don't miond rolling the dice, you can start with a higher withdrawal rate, and maybe you will do fine, or maybe you will see you are NOT doing fine and need to tighten your belt considerably. JPM in not original in coming up with this idea. They are promoting it as a way to get business because they claim they will provide guidance in how best to know how high you can go and how quickly and how much you must tighten your belt when needed. For an annual management fee, of course.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 09:33 AM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
why bother with the irs tables. just use bob clyatts method.

look at your balance each year and take either 4% or if markets fell take 5% less then you did the year before, which ever is greater.

nice ,simple , and dynamic .
The paper will say that this method usually leaves an awfully lot on the table.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:37 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
i don't think so ,only because if you are getting on in age and you see to much money accumulating you will find a way to spend it .

you give a bunch of 80 year olds an extra million bucks i guarantee you they will have no trouble spending it.

what they wouldn't spend on themselves would be spent on kids and grandkids.

no one just spends like a robot.
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014, 09:52 AM   #19
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i don't think so ,only because if you are getting on in age and you see to much money accumulating you will find a way to spend it .
So you are basically saying to just use Clyatt's method... except when it seems like you shouldn't use it.

How is that any different than the people saying they'll take a dynamic approach to spending based on stock market performance? Seems like both are part rule based with a dash of adjustment based on reality and common sense.
__________________
tuixiu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014, 11:25 AM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i don't think so ,only because if you are getting on in age and you see to much money accumulating you will find a way to spend it .

you give a bunch of 80 year olds an extra million bucks i guarantee you they will have no trouble spending it.

what they wouldn't spend on themselves would be spent on kids and grandkids.

no one just spends like a robot.
It sounds like you'd advise periodically stopping and reviewing your situation. In particular consider your reducing life expectancy as you grow older. And then adjust your spending accordingly.

I think that's what the paper is recommending.
__________________

__________________
Independent 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
4% Withdrawal - Golden No More (New York Times) SumDay FIRE and Money 56 06-07-2013 06:26 AM
Social Security: New rule for Withdrawal oliverdickens FIRE and Money 10 07-28-2009 11:33 AM
Withdrawal Schemes wabmester FIRECalc support 6 01-23-2007 06:00 PM
New Withdrawal Rate Study cyclone6 FIRE and Money 35 06-03-2006 10:02 PM
New Calculator - Max Sustainable Withdrawal Rates kmarbach FIRE and Money 13 03-19-2003 01:28 AM

 

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