Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-20-2015, 09:59 AM   #61
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 267
From my understanding "Sequence risk" affects mainly the first 20 years after we retire. The whole market is going into a cycle, up and down, how long or short it takes affects our withdrawal pattern. Thus if we have a long recession during the early part of retirement, it can be a tough miserable few years.
What it practically means is that we should withdraw less when the market is down and probably get more when it is up to make a balance.
__________________

__________________
Birchwood 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 09-20-2015, 10:06 AM   #62
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
trying to spend only dividends or only interest is really not my idea of a retirement income .

the issue is dying with to much money unspent may not be the greatest plan either . ideally you want to enjoy your money and spend some of it down while still leaving legacy money for heirs .

this is what a good retirement withdrawal plan does .

what about inflation adjusting ? dividends may not track your personal rate of inflation which can differ vastly from the cpi ?

you still have sequence risk . the value of your dollars compounding after each dividend payment will be less at the gate each quarter unless you are offsetting the decrease in share price from the dividend being paid out by a enough of a gain . in an extended down turn this can be an issue .

in reality getting a 6% total return with a 2% dividend and 4% appreciation is no different than drawing that 2% against a portfolio that has 6% appreciation and no dividend . they both are effected by the same thing .
Agree mostly, except we are talking about sequence of return risk. If you are forced to sell something to sustain your lifestyle at a bad time, this is sequence of return risk.

If I can live on the divs(I can) and the divs are close to a SWR (they are) I don't see the sequence risk? Agree I have div reduction risk and my portfolio may not be as diversified as many would like. Maybe these risks are comparable in size to sequence risk but I don't think so.

Agree that I will probably need to do something to prevent leaving too high a legacy for my daughter. But I can deal with this by liquidating some principal at an advantageous time. Not be forced into doing so.

Actual results for 18 years of investing. Total CAGR for total return about 12% about 3-3.5% of this divs rest(8.5-9%) cap appreciation.
__________________

__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 02:02 PM   #63
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 nun View Post
Taking the dividends from a retirement account means they are taxed as income. From a non retirement account they are treated as dividends
actually michael kitces looked in to this and what he found was if equity's throw off dividends the tax deferred account was a better choice then the lower tax brackets of a taxable account for 2 reasons .

the fact that the dividends can compound tax deferred over time beat the tax difference from the special capital gains rates and the compounding capital gains tax deferred in the retirement account beat the equity's in the taxable account .

the 2nd reason is turnover . the more the turnover in equity's the worse they will do in a taxable account and that is true of funsds too .

you can see in your head after decades of paying taxes in the taxable account on dividends the lesser amount loses more compounding ability than the tax difference .

https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-lo...-time-horizon/
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 08:53 AM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
actually michael kitces looked in to this and what he found was if equity's throw off dividends the tax deferred account was a better choice then the lower tax brackets of a taxable account for 2 reasons .

the fact that the dividends can compound tax deferred over time beat the tax difference from the special capital gains rates and the compounding capital gains tax deferred in the retirement account beat the equity's in the taxable account .

the 2nd reason is turnover . the more the turnover in equity's the worse they will do in a taxable account and that is true of funsds too .

you can see in your head after decades of paying taxes in the taxable account on dividends the lesser amount loses more compounding ability than the tax difference .

https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-lo...-time-horizon/
I was thinking of the withdrawal phase. I assume that most people have equities in their after tax accounts as they will have filled up their bond allocation in retirement accounts. When it comes to withdrawing funds taking qualified dividends from taxable accounts allows for some tax savings strategies depending on your income level and if you reinvest dividends in a retirement account the tax deferral compounds.
__________________
“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 09-21-2015, 09:15 AM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
exactly the case that kitces looked under the hood and found that really may not be the best way to do it . dividends distributions and turnover can wipe away any tax advantage having the equity's in the after tax account . having low yielding bonds and cash may be a waste in the deferred account as well . unless you were in the zero capital gains bracket the savings from capital gains rates may be negated out .

this is just the opposite of what old school used to think . but they never looked at it with distributions and turnover in investments so the tax savings always appeared a no brainer . but not so .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 10:07 AM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
exactly the case that kitces looked under the hood and found that really may not be the best way to do it . dividends distributions and turnover can wipe away any tax advantage having the equity's in the after tax account . having low yielding bonds and cash may be a waste in the deferred account as well . unless you were in the zero capital gains bracket the savings from capital gains rates may be negated out .

this is just the opposite of what old school used to think . but they never looked at it with distributions and turnover in investments so the tax savings always appeared a no brainer . but not so .
Given the choice between the immediate tax savings of 0% tax on qualified dividends from a taxable account and income tax on dividends from retirement accounts I think I'll take that rather than a generalized analysis.
__________________
“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 09-21-2015, 10:14 AM   #67
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
exactly the case that kitces looked under the hood and found that really may not be the best way to do it . dividends distributions and turnover can wipe away any tax advantage having the equity's in the after tax account . having low yielding bonds and cash may be a waste in the deferred account as well . unless you were in the zero capital gains bracket the savings from capital gains rates may be negated out .

this is just the opposite of what old school used to think. but they never looked at it with distributions and turnover in investments so the tax savings always appeared a no brainer . but not so .
I think growth rate was probably the biggest determining factor for "efficient asset location". Bond and other fixed income in taxable accounts could certainly be quite inefficient at the 6-10% interest rates of decades past. In today's low-rate environment, not so much.

Of course, the Kitces model assumes one is in the 25% marginal tax bracket and doesn't take into account the potential tax torpedo when you start drawing SS/pension nor the effects of RMDs. To be honest, I think tax drag mostly matters if you're re-investing dividends and capital gains distributions. If you're using the distributions (and maybe even selling shares) for your annual spending, then I think the tax treatment of LTCG and q-divs along with tax loss harvesting might be preferable. There's also the small matter of the complexity of drawing from tax-deferred accounts penalty free if you retired, say, in your 40s or something.

Really, if pensions and other income will put you in 25% or higher marginal tax bracket, best place to have stocks and other high growth vehicles is the Roth.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 01:12 PM   #68
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

Really, if pensions and other income will put you in 25% or higher marginal tax bracket, best place to have stocks and other high growth vehicles is the Roth.
Yes that's perfect for lowering tax.

There are some practical income considerations when you are spanning the gap to 59.5 and beyond even if you do a 72t. One of those is keeping immediate tax to a minimum so that you maximize the money you have to spend. So if I can take qualified dividends from a taxable account any pay 0% tax (assuming I keep my income in the right tax bracket) that sounds a lot better than some potential deferred benefit.

In the real world most people have equities in tax deferred accounts along with fixed income and I would expect them to also have some equities and cash in taxable accounts.....certainly if they are going into ER.
__________________
“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 09-21-2015, 02:39 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
Given the choice between the immediate tax savings of 0% tax on qualified dividends from a taxable account and income tax on dividends from retirement accounts I think I'll take that rather than a generalized analysis.
+1
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 04:59 AM   #70
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birchwood View Post
From my understanding "Sequence risk" affects mainly the first 20 years after we retire. .

This is mostly dependent on the age one retires.

So I ask- For true early retires, those in 40's for example, it would seem that the risk of inflation is far greater over the course of a 40-45 year retirement than series of return risk.

Would it make sense that , in the above context, holding a 60/40 AA (45 years of retirement to cover) with the 40 percent earning next to nothing is a lot riskier *in total* than staying at 100 percent equity asset allocation yielding an approximate 2 percent dividend yield. ?

We've just been through 8 years of near zero interest rates.
__________________
papadad111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 05:03 AM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
inflation is part of the sequence of return risk equation when spending down . it is already built in to the result . in fact the worst case scenario we had to date 1965/1966 did not fail based on just market returns . it was inflation that did it in .

but just by definition sequence risk when spending down has to include inflation adjusting .

1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38

for comparison the 140 year average's were:

stocks 8.39--bonds 2.85%--rebalanced portfolio 6.17% inflation 2.23%

the biggest danger though is the first 15 years . the returns above were pretty ok . buit looking at the 15 year results you can see what made them worst case , inflation did .

1966-stocks minus .13%--bonds 1.08%--rebalanced .64%-- inflation 5.38%
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 08:15 AM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birchwood View Post
From my understanding "Sequence risk" affects mainly the first 20 years after we retire. .
That's kind of like saying you only lose a football game if you score less points than your opponent.

"Sequence risk" implies there is more risk at the beginning of retirement. Well, the first 20 years IS retirement for the majority of people. Its at least half for most everyone so obviously the first 20 years are critical. I would say once you get past the first 5 years unscathed, you're in pretty good shape
__________________
utrecht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 09:36 AM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
That's kind of like saying you only lose a football game if you score less points than your opponent.

"Sequence risk" implies there is more risk at the beginning of retirement. Well, the first 20 years IS retirement for the majority of people. Its at least half for most everyone so obviously the first 20 years are critical. I would say once you get past the first 5 years unscathed, you're in pretty good shape
Yes, but it depends on how long your retirement is expected to be. I feel good that I have escaped sequence of return risk for the first 9 years of my retirement, but I am only 65 and hopefully have a long retirement left. So, I still should be concerned. Equivalent to a 65 year old retiring today.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 10:02 AM   #74
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmar View Post
Yes, but it depends on how long your retirement is expected to be. I feel good that I have escaped sequence of return risk for the first 9 years of my retirement, but I am only 65 and hopefully have a long retirement left. So, I still should be concerned. Equivalent to a 65 year old retiring today.
Ah, but how much was your starting retirement portfolio and how much is your portfolio worth now?

I reckon the situation is much less risky for someone who starts off with $1M and after 9 years has an inflation-adjusted portfolio of $1.5M versus someone who starts off with $1M but only has $500K inflation-adjusted after 9 years.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 10:40 AM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
Ah, but how much was your starting retirement portfolio and how much is your portfolio worth now?

I reckon the situation is much less risky for someone who starts off with $1M and after 9 years has an inflation-adjusted portfolio of $1.5M versus someone who starts off with $1M but only has $500K inflation-adjusted after 9 years.
It's a little more complicated for me. For the first 5-6 years of retirement I was still cashing out deferred compensation awards to fund our living expenses. Some of these cash outs were used to buy vacation properties. If I add these back my portfolio would be a little bigger than when I retired(perhaps by inflation). The awards were MTM in my initial retirement portfolio. This despite the fact we were spending heavily on other things like travel during this period. So all in all not a bad result especially when you consider the impact of the financial crises during the initial period of retirement.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 11:47 AM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
I retired at 52, about 18 months ago, and Ive been spending rental income and cash. I plan to keep doing that until next year when I'll be 55 and my pension will start. If I was spending from my investments this summer's correction would have been slightly worrying, but as I don't ever plan on spending from my investments sequence of return risk doesn't bother me.
__________________
“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 09-22-2015, 12:03 PM   #77
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
I but as I don't ever plan on spending from my investments sequence of return risk doesn't bother me.
Not even divs/interest? If not your heirs will certainly thank you.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 01:04 PM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cobra9777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,136
I retired at 52 two years ago. With interest rates near zero and stocks at lofty valuations, we were quite concerned about sequence of returns risk. In the year leading up to ER, we made the decision to take both pensions as an annuity, pay off the mortgage, buy two rental houses, increase our cash allocation to 5%, and tilt the taxable portfolio to high dividends.

At the moment, DW is still working OMY, but her pension annuity will replace her net pay exactly. So, our early spending is covered by her net pay/pension, my pension, rental income, dividends from the taxable account, and small withdrawals from the cash allocation, mainly just to cover occasional large discretionary items. This should easily carry us to 67-70 when SS and RMDs begin.

These actions probably sacrificed some long-term growth potential. But, with a long time horizon, we feel a lot better about near-term sequence of return risk compared to the alternatives. There's still a growing portfolio of stocks and bonds, sufficient to cover other long-term risks like inflation, longevity, and LTC. Also a monstrosity of a house that will be downsized at some point, further boosting the nestegg and cutting expenses.

I watch our investments and market volatility with interest as always. But with spending covered, I don't fret much about sequence of return risk, interest rate risk, what the Fed might do, price of oil, etc. My biggest problem is just getting past the rookie fears and actually spending some money.
__________________
Retired at 52 in July 2013. On to better things...
AA: 55% stock, 15% real estate, 27% bonds, 3% cash
WR: 2.0% SI: 2 pensions, some rental income, SS later
Cobra9777 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 03:55 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
i retired day 1 of the yaun drop . from that day on markets sucked . i am very concerned about sequence risk early on .

we will adjust our budget downward based on dec 31 balance .

i always thought i would be the unlucky one to pull the plug right on the eve of an extended drop .

bingo ! this is not china's fault , it is mine ha ha ha

the good news is i had a 50/50 allocation in mind but at the last minute decided to do a rising glide path in so i am at about 40% equity's at this point still averaging back in .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 06:53 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmar View Post
Not even divs/interest? If not your heirs will certainly thank you.
That's the plan; rent, pension and SS checks from the US and the UK will more than cover my 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
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
Kitces: / Managing Sequence Of Return Risk With Bucket Strategies Vs A Total Return macav933 FIRE and Money 21 12-06-2014 10:38 AM
Born lucky? Sequence of returns risk Focus FIRE and Money 40 08-17-2014 12:26 AM
Interesting article on impact of sequence of returns trirod FIRE and Money 6 07-12-2013 09:08 PM
Monte Carlo Simulations-now recognized as understating risk samclem FIRE and Money 46 11-07-2009 12:49 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.