Ready
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Something I've been thinking about for a while as we debate whether a "safe" withdrawal rate should be 4/3/2%...For those of us who own our homes outright, and where the home value is a fairly substantial percentage of our total net worth, wouldn't it be reasonable to go for the 4% WR, knowing that if we do have a really bad sequence of returns, and the money runs out in say 20 or 25 years, when we were hoping for it to last more like 30-40 years, we could just do a reverse mortgage later in life to cover the difference?
I suppose it depends on whether you are trying to leave a sizable estate to heirs or charity. But if you are not, why not use the equity in your home as your safety net against the worst case scenario of a 4% or greater WR being too aggressive?
I would hate to cut back to 2-3% just to be safe, and then find out later in life that I didn't really need to, and a large chunk of my nest egg, plus my entire home, all goes to charity.
I'm not sure if others are in the same situation, but in my case my home value is about equal to my nest egg, so it's a sizable amount to just ignore in thinking about withdrawal rates.
I suppose it depends on whether you are trying to leave a sizable estate to heirs or charity. But if you are not, why not use the equity in your home as your safety net against the worst case scenario of a 4% or greater WR being too aggressive?
I would hate to cut back to 2-3% just to be safe, and then find out later in life that I didn't really need to, and a large chunk of my nest egg, plus my entire home, all goes to charity.
I'm not sure if others are in the same situation, but in my case my home value is about equal to my nest egg, so it's a sizable amount to just ignore in thinking about withdrawal rates.