... but doesn't give any real ideas on what will optimize. Anyway a link:
Time to replace the 4% withdrawal rule Robert Powell - MarketWatch
Time to replace the 4% withdrawal rule Robert Powell - MarketWatch
IIRC his prize was awarded years later for his original work of extending MPT to the Sharpe ratio, and the quality of the analysis has improved quite a bit since then.Yeah, and to think he's got a Nobel in economics.
That is a very good point!The other issue is that the "excess" funds from the 4% SWR may go to heroic end-of-life treatment or long-term care. So perhaps it's not such a bad idea to have a little left over for the endgame, especially if you're not sentient enough to take the field.
Jeesh, I actually read the article. What a waste. In summary it says, "there must be a better way, maybe we will find it some day."
Jeesh, I actually read the article. What a waste. In summary it says, "there must be a better way, maybe we will find it some day."
Jeesh, I actually read the article. What a waste. In summary it says, "there must be a better way, maybe we will find it some day."
A retiree using a 4% rule faces spending shortfalls when risky investments underperform, may accumulate wasted surpluses when they outperform and, in any case, could likely purchase exactly the same spending distributions more cheaply."
Glad I wasn't alone in expecting that. Looking for the fastball and they threw a changeup.I was pretty sure I'd be seeing a pitch for annuities somewhere in the article. At least he didn't go there.
When I read this
I was pretty sure I'd be seeing a pitch for annuities somewhere in the article. At least he didn't go there.
Yup, I was expecting he same thing. But, I was disappointed that he dangled that "more cheaply" bon mot out there and then never delivered anything.Glad I wasn't alone in expecting that. Looking for the fastball and they threw a changeup.
I don't think you can have a retirement plan run purely by formula. Adjustments need to be made based on life expectancy and portfolio performance.
From the article "Supporting a constant spending plan using a volatile investment policy is fundamentally flawed"
I totally agree, but the flaw is in the first part of the sentence - the part about a constant spending plan.
I don't think you can have a retirement plan run purely by formula. Adjustments need to be made based on life expectancy and portfolio performance.
I don't think you can have a retirement plan run purely by formula. Adjustments need to be made based on life expectancy and portfolio performance.
unclemick, I gotta admit I sometimes don’t understand your posts but feel I am missing something important.1948 RR 9 Kelso, Washington, The Norwegian widow - Ms Wright aka Andersen. Of course other tellings place it at other locations/times/names in the ole PacNW.
Handgrenades and horseshoes - the non math version can be fun. SEC yield in hard times and a little extra in good times - use that 4% stake as your aiming point.
heh heh heh - maximize my stinking utility! Right. My cholorestol is back down below 200 - The Jazz Fest opens in New Orleans and I'm up here eating nuts and twigs in my 17th year of ER and eschewing BBQ. There is a message in there somewhere. ? Dory36's old quote - measure with a micrometer and cut with a hatchet. .
I knew you were an optimist at heart!... the eventual market recovery.
My interpretation:unclemick, I gotta admit I sometimes don’t understand your posts but feel I am missing something important.
unclemick, I gotta admit I sometimes don’t understand your posts but feel I am missing something important.
unclemick, I gotta admit I sometimes don’t understand your posts but feel I am missing something important.
This is something I certainly agree with and practice as hard as I can.My interpretation is that we are making this too hard and life is to be lived in ER, not fretted over. None of us will live forever and most of us can alter our paths if things get hairy and the 4% constant doesn't look sustainable.