I must be missing something. Although I haven't been around very long, anything I have seen posted by JWR1945 has been very useful. He has been quick to respond to my questions and strikes me as very knowledgeable. I haven't read everything posted at the NoFee SWR Research Group, but the posts I have read (by JWR1945) strike me as a good faith and sincere effort to examine the issue. Another thing that strikes me is the incredible amount of time that he has obviously devoted to this matter and his willingness to share. While I tend to be a believer in the folly of market timing and predictions (very much along the lines that Cut-Throat and Unclemick have described), I have picked up some very useful information from JWR1945 and I am interested in hearing what he has to say.
Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
- Thread starter Walker101
- Start date
Try uploading the file to a Yahoo Briefcase. (They'll give you 30 MB of storage for free)
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/
Make sure you set up the Yahoo Briefcase to share access with others.
You might also compress the file (.zip file) to reduce its size.
I should be able to download the spreadsheet from Yahoo and post it on the REHP web site.
Depending on Yahoo's bandwith restrictions, 1 or 2 people per day might even be able to download the file from the Briefcase directly.
intercst
Workwayless
Dryer sheet wannabe
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 13
John,
Thanks for the update and your efforts. I hope that you are successful in downloading your calculator to the REHP as your research will certaintly attract a wider audience to benefit from it.
WWL
I have now successfully upload four modified calculators onto a Yahoo briefcase. I have included a brief write up about the modifications.
I have checked everything out. I have downloaded everything successfully. It takes about 5 minutes each because Yahoo slows down to 21KB! (I have cable internet service. I had expected a faster download.)
I have been unsuccessful posting them as zip files. These are all memory hogs: 5MB of memory each.
To download, right-click on a file and Save-Target-As (as if you were downloading an old time radio program).
To gain access, you will need to know my Yahoo username. It is jwr19452000. [I use the small letters for jwr at Yahoo.]
I will also need to know your Yahoo username so that I can grant you permission to view and download my files. So far, I have listed only one friend: intercst.
It has taken me only 5 hours to do this. It will go much faster next time.
Have fun.
John R.
I have checked everything out. I have downloaded everything successfully. It takes about 5 minutes each because Yahoo slows down to 21KB! (I have cable internet service. I had expected a faster download.)
I have been unsuccessful posting them as zip files. These are all memory hogs: 5MB of memory each.
To download, right-click on a file and Save-Target-As (as if you were downloading an old time radio program).
To gain access, you will need to know my Yahoo username. It is jwr19452000. [I use the small letters for jwr at Yahoo.]
I will also need to know your Yahoo username so that I can grant you permission to view and download my files. So far, I have listed only one friend: intercst.
It has taken me only 5 hours to do this. It will go much faster next time.
Have fun.
John R.
Here is my write up about the modified calculators that I have posted at Yahoo briefcase.
REHP Deluxe V1.0A is the basic Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator (Version 1.61 of November 7, 2002) with a fully functional switching capability and with a variety of data analysis enhancements.
Switching is limited to portfolios of stocks and commercial paper.
The unmodified Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator did not include its intended switching capabilities because of Excel programming limitations. I have added row 2550, which calculates the total stock return. Its calculation is exactly the same as was originally made in row 182. By making this calculation separately, I have been able to implement the full switching logic that was originally intended. Excel does not allow enough code to do everything in row 182 by itself. The modified logic in row 182 now uses both P/E10 switching thresholds and all three portfolio allocations. [Previously, the only cells F19, B20 and I20 were functional. Cells I19 and F20 were not used.]
[I have included rows 2560-2562, which summarize the more stable portion of returns: dividends and dividends plus interest.]
There are two data analysis groups.
The first is in columns L through T and rows 1 through 9 and in columns BA through BJ and rows 1 through 144. This area makes determining which portfolios would have survived as a function of withdrawal rates much easier. In particular, it allows you to select the retirement start years that you are interested in. I usually examine 30-year retirements from 1871-1980 and 1921-1980. Notice that I include some partially completed sequences (which are subjected to dummy data after 2002) but not all.
I have put the instructions for using the other area of data analysis in columns F through I and in rows 12 through 17. Simply press function key F5 (Go To) and enter the proper location.
Here is another helpful hint. Use the shortcut CTRL+HOME to return to the beginning of the spreadsheet (at cell A1). It saves a lot of time.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V1.0B includes three additional enhancements.
1) The JanSz feature reduces the portfolio balance by a specified percentage of any increase from six years earlier. It leaves the balance untouched when there is a decrease. It should normally be set to 0%.
2) The Chips feature allows you to specify what fraction of the dividend amount that you reinvest. It should normally be set to 100%.
3) The B feature expands the switching capabilities. It introduces four P/E10 thresholds with five allocations. However, the stock allocation below the lowest threshold is fixed at 100% and the stock allocation above the highest threshold is fixed at 0%. You can choose any combination of percentages for the intermediate allocations. In version V1.0B, switching is limited to portfolios of stocks and commercial paper.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V2.0B TIPS is identical except that switching is with portfolios of stocks and TIPS.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V3.0B ibond is identical except that switching is with portfolios of stocks and ibonds.
Have fun.
John R.
REHP Deluxe V1.0A is the basic Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator (Version 1.61 of November 7, 2002) with a fully functional switching capability and with a variety of data analysis enhancements.
Switching is limited to portfolios of stocks and commercial paper.
The unmodified Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator did not include its intended switching capabilities because of Excel programming limitations. I have added row 2550, which calculates the total stock return. Its calculation is exactly the same as was originally made in row 182. By making this calculation separately, I have been able to implement the full switching logic that was originally intended. Excel does not allow enough code to do everything in row 182 by itself. The modified logic in row 182 now uses both P/E10 switching thresholds and all three portfolio allocations. [Previously, the only cells F19, B20 and I20 were functional. Cells I19 and F20 were not used.]
[I have included rows 2560-2562, which summarize the more stable portion of returns: dividends and dividends plus interest.]
There are two data analysis groups.
The first is in columns L through T and rows 1 through 9 and in columns BA through BJ and rows 1 through 144. This area makes determining which portfolios would have survived as a function of withdrawal rates much easier. In particular, it allows you to select the retirement start years that you are interested in. I usually examine 30-year retirements from 1871-1980 and 1921-1980. Notice that I include some partially completed sequences (which are subjected to dummy data after 2002) but not all.
I have put the instructions for using the other area of data analysis in columns F through I and in rows 12 through 17. Simply press function key F5 (Go To) and enter the proper location.
Here is another helpful hint. Use the shortcut CTRL+HOME to return to the beginning of the spreadsheet (at cell A1). It saves a lot of time.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V1.0B includes three additional enhancements.
1) The JanSz feature reduces the portfolio balance by a specified percentage of any increase from six years earlier. It leaves the balance untouched when there is a decrease. It should normally be set to 0%.
2) The Chips feature allows you to specify what fraction of the dividend amount that you reinvest. It should normally be set to 100%.
3) The B feature expands the switching capabilities. It introduces four P/E10 thresholds with five allocations. However, the stock allocation below the lowest threshold is fixed at 100% and the stock allocation above the highest threshold is fixed at 0%. You can choose any combination of percentages for the intermediate allocations. In version V1.0B, switching is limited to portfolios of stocks and commercial paper.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V2.0B TIPS is identical except that switching is with portfolios of stocks and TIPS.
JanSz-Chips Deluxe V3.0B ibond is identical except that switching is with portfolios of stocks and ibonds.
Have fun.
John R.
I've downloaded JWR1945's four Excel spreadsheets and made them available on the REHP website. You can access them at this link:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/jwr1945.html
You won't need any kind of password to download them.
intercst
From Yahoo Briefcase Help
Yes, you can access someone's Briefcase if the person has created a folder or album and has granted access to you specifically. This means the account owner has entered your Yahoo! ID in their list of friends to share with.
*For Premium accounts only - If a Yahoo! Briefcase Premium account owner has created a folder or album and made the contents public or specifically granted you access, then you can view that person's Briefcase.
Simply go to the person's Briefcase. If, for example, his Yahoo! ID is "Yahoo_JoeUser," you would go to:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/Yahoo_JoeUser
You can then download and view the files in that person's folder.
You can also easily access someone's Briefcase from their public profile. If that person has chosen to list their Briefcase on their profile, click on the link to access their public files.
*Please note: If you are a member of the free Yahoo! Briefcase service, public access to your uploaded files will no longer be available. However, you will still be able to share your files with people with Yahoo! IDs and via email.
I copied these addresses from the top and bottom of the first page.
Your Briefcase address: http://briefcase.yahoo.com/jwr19452000
For quick access, bookmark http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/jwr19452000 Tell your friends!
Have fun.
John R.
Yes, you can access someone's Briefcase if the person has created a folder or album and has granted access to you specifically. This means the account owner has entered your Yahoo! ID in their list of friends to share with.
*For Premium accounts only - If a Yahoo! Briefcase Premium account owner has created a folder or album and made the contents public or specifically granted you access, then you can view that person's Briefcase.
Simply go to the person's Briefcase. If, for example, his Yahoo! ID is "Yahoo_JoeUser," you would go to:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/Yahoo_JoeUser
You can then download and view the files in that person's folder.
You can also easily access someone's Briefcase from their public profile. If that person has chosen to list their Briefcase on their profile, click on the link to access their public files.
*Please note: If you are a member of the free Yahoo! Briefcase service, public access to your uploaded files will no longer be available. However, you will still be able to share your files with people with Yahoo! IDs and via email.
I copied these addresses from the top and bottom of the first page.
Your Briefcase address: http://briefcase.yahoo.com/jwr19452000
For quick access, bookmark http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/jwr19452000 Tell your friends!
Have fun.
John R.
I should add that it took me over 40 minutes to download one of the files from Yahoo (2.45 kb transfer rate.) If you have broadband, it should only take 10 or 15 seconds to download one of the .zip files from the REHP website.
intercst
Workwayless
Dryer sheet wannabe
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 13
Intercst, thanks for loading the files to the REHP and for zipping them. I don't have broadband and it was going to take over an hour per file for me to download the unzipped ones.
WWL
All four of JWR1945's Excel files were about 5 MB. I have a broadband connection that usually gives me a 180 kbps transfer rate on a file download.
The first file took me about 3 minutes, the second about 10 minutes, the third about 20 minutes and the last over 40 minutes (at a pathetic 2.45 kbps transfer rate.) Obviously Yahoo Briefcase degrades the quality of the transfer rate the more you use it.
I'd be interested to hear what kind of download transfer rate you get from the REHP website. I'm guessing that with a dial-up connection, you'd get between 5 and 10 kbps. You should be able to download a 1.5 MB zip file in 3 to 5 minutes.
intercst
Workwayless
Dryer sheet wannabe
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 13
I download the first file with my 56k dial-up connection. Yup you were right--it took 3 minutes.
This is a pleasant development. 
Thanks JWR1945 for sharing your work in this way. And thanks intrcst for making it easy for all of us to get a copy and try it out.
I do have a lot of retirement goofing off and playing to do over the next several days, but I'm hoping to try the new tool out soon. I'm also hoping it will generate a lot of new discussion.
Thanks JWR1945 for sharing your work in this way. And thanks intrcst for making it easy for all of us to get a copy and try it out.I do have a lot of retirement goofing off and playing to do over the next several days, but I'm hoping to try the new tool out soon. I'm also hoping it will generate a lot of new discussion.
This is a pleasant development. Thanks JWR1945 for sharing your work in this way. And thanks intercst for making it easy for all of us to get a copy and try it out.
You and I are thinking very much along the same lines, SalaryGuru. There are signs that The Debate About Having a Debate is nearing an end, and that we have pulled off this magic trick in the way that I always hoped (and believed) we would pull it off, as a community. Praise the Lord!
I'm hoping to try the new tool out soon. I'm also hoping it will generate a lot of new discussion.
Amen to that as well.
You and I are thinking very much along the same lines, SalaryGuru. There are signs that The Debate About Having a Debate is nearing an end, and that we have pulled off this magic trick in the way that I always hoped (and believed) we would pull it off, as a community. Praise the Lord!
I'm hoping to try the new tool out soon. I'm also hoping it will generate a lot of new discussion.
Amen to that as well.
J
John Galt
Guest
Hello! Re. "generate new discussion", always a good thing. Anyway, as long as I am alive and posting
we should not run out of topics to examine
John Galt
we should not run out of topics to examine
John Galt
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I think we "get" that theres some bad historic blood. In fact, some posters here stopped going to other places because the only meaningful discussion revolved around anti-***** stuff. You can count me among those.
That having been said it seemed like we were having a good dialogue and some of us are learning something.
If theres no "there" there, we'll get that. If there is, then thats goodness.
I would vote that we keep this discussion on topic, rather than devolve into who doesnt like who, and what was done in other places. Perhaps if we dont like or agree with someone, we can focus our attention and efforts in other areas?
That having been said it seemed like we were having a good dialogue and some of us are learning something.
If theres no "there" there, we'll get that. If there is, then thats goodness.
I would vote that we keep this discussion on topic, rather than devolve into who doesnt like who, and what was done in other places. Perhaps if we dont like or agree with someone, we can focus our attention and efforts in other areas?
I would vote that we keep this discussion on topic.
My perception is that it would be a unanimous vote. That was the point of my earlier comment. We are deep in the right groove, so deep that I believe we are going to be able to handle all the turns without slipping off the track this time.
I think we "get" that there's some bad historic blood.
There's a whole lot less bad blood than a lot of people seem to think, in my view. In optimistic moments, I am inclined to believe that it's not even an issue worth worrying about.
There is certainly no bad blood on my end. Intercst extended me a warm welcome at the Motley Fool board when I first posted there and I have never forgotten it. The REHP study has helped me in significant ways with my investing strategies, and I believe that it has helped many others as well, so I feel gratitude towards him for having done the work on that. I of course appreciate the fact that he started the Motley Fool board, a board at which I have had some of the best times of my life. I would very much like to see John Greaney's name on one of the blurbs on the back cover of my "Passion Saving" book. That's the way God planned it, and that's the way I want it to be (and that I believe it will be).
Are there posters on "the other side" who feel hostility towards me? I see little evidence of it. There was a post at the Motley Fool board on Friday night from one of my strongest critics noting how I have never engaged in rudeness to other posters in my posts re this matter. You don't say that sort of thing about someone towards whom you feel genuine hostility. 2828 and Ariechert and some others joke about me regularly over there. Again, you don't see that sort of thing when there is genuine hostility at play. There are many. many posts in the Archives in which people have said things that appear on the surface to be hostile. Most of those comments were clearly put forward either as jokes or for tactical reasons. There may have been a few cases where there was a genuine hostility at play, but darn few, in my personal assessment.
I of course agree with TH that we should focus on substance. But I say that not only because it is the nice thing to do. I say it also because there really is no bad blood issue worth struggling with. The words that people have posted that are being pointed to as signs of bad blood are really something different, signs of confusion about what the historical data says re timing and SWRs and other substance-related questions. Solve the substance issues, and the "bad blood" issues magically go "poof!."
Retire Early boards are about how to retire early. They always have been and they always will be. We all should stop worrying about bad blood silliness because there is none to speak of. On either "side."
Truth be told, there are no sides. We all share a common purpose, to learn all that we can learn about how to put together effective plans for early retirement. That's what we most like to talk about, and the events of the last few days indicate that that is what we very soon will once again be talking about. On all the boards.
The Debate About Having a Debate is over. The Retire Early community--each and every individual who has ever contributed a post or listened in on a discussion without posting--has won.
My perception is that it would be a unanimous vote. That was the point of my earlier comment. We are deep in the right groove, so deep that I believe we are going to be able to handle all the turns without slipping off the track this time.
I think we "get" that there's some bad historic blood.
There's a whole lot less bad blood than a lot of people seem to think, in my view. In optimistic moments, I am inclined to believe that it's not even an issue worth worrying about.
There is certainly no bad blood on my end. Intercst extended me a warm welcome at the Motley Fool board when I first posted there and I have never forgotten it. The REHP study has helped me in significant ways with my investing strategies, and I believe that it has helped many others as well, so I feel gratitude towards him for having done the work on that. I of course appreciate the fact that he started the Motley Fool board, a board at which I have had some of the best times of my life. I would very much like to see John Greaney's name on one of the blurbs on the back cover of my "Passion Saving" book. That's the way God planned it, and that's the way I want it to be (and that I believe it will be).
Are there posters on "the other side" who feel hostility towards me? I see little evidence of it. There was a post at the Motley Fool board on Friday night from one of my strongest critics noting how I have never engaged in rudeness to other posters in my posts re this matter. You don't say that sort of thing about someone towards whom you feel genuine hostility. 2828 and Ariechert and some others joke about me regularly over there. Again, you don't see that sort of thing when there is genuine hostility at play. There are many. many posts in the Archives in which people have said things that appear on the surface to be hostile. Most of those comments were clearly put forward either as jokes or for tactical reasons. There may have been a few cases where there was a genuine hostility at play, but darn few, in my personal assessment.
I of course agree with TH that we should focus on substance. But I say that not only because it is the nice thing to do. I say it also because there really is no bad blood issue worth struggling with. The words that people have posted that are being pointed to as signs of bad blood are really something different, signs of confusion about what the historical data says re timing and SWRs and other substance-related questions. Solve the substance issues, and the "bad blood" issues magically go "poof!."
Retire Early boards are about how to retire early. They always have been and they always will be. We all should stop worrying about bad blood silliness because there is none to speak of. On either "side."
Truth be told, there are no sides. We all share a common purpose, to learn all that we can learn about how to put together effective plans for early retirement. That's what we most like to talk about, and the events of the last few days indicate that that is what we very soon will once again be talking about. On all the boards.
The Debate About Having a Debate is over. The Retire Early community--each and every individual who has ever contributed a post or listened in on a discussion without posting--has won.
J
John Galt
Guest
Hello *****! A thoughtful post. I don't know the background of this
"debate - banned from the board" stuff, and don't really care to. I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God
planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me.
Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.
John Galt
"debate - banned from the board" stuff, and don't really care to. I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God
planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me.
Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.
John Galt
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz" proper
I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me. Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.
The part that is a little bit of a joke is the reference to the song "That's the Way God Planned It" (I know it from George Harrison's "Concert for Bangla Desh" album.)
The Retire Early point is that intercst and I have been the two most prominant screen-names in the Retire Early movement since its earliest days, and it would be silly for anyone to think that each of us won't be doing whatever he can to help the other take his work public and thereby bring new community members into the fold. Intercst has received a number of book offers, and I believe that someday he will put a book forward into the public arena. When he does, I will be extremely pleased to offer a blurb for the back cover endorsing it. I would view it as a small payback for the things I have learned from him over the years.
I have every reason to believe that intercst feels the same way, and that he will be sending me a blurb endorsing my book when I send him a note requesting one.
Now, if I endorse intercst's book, and he endorses my book, it's a little silly to think that there is some sort of "bad blood" between us, is it not? That's the point. There is no bad blood, so people should just stop worrying about it. It is a non-issue.
The issue on the table is--Does the historical data back up the JWR1945 findings or not? If it does, we can forget about all this silly Debate About Having a Debate nonsense. If the data backs up the claims, there is no purpose served anymore by posters putting forward comments that might appear to some to be some sort of evidence of "bad blood."
Once people become aware of what the data says, all this personal junk goes away. That's why I have been recommending for a long time that we just take a pass on the personal junk and focus on the data. The data tells the story. The easy way to solve this particular disagreement is to look at the data and see what it says. The true SWR is whatever the data says it is.
I am trying to offer an encouraging word. This is not hard. It is easy.
There is all sorts of stuff that follows from what the data says re SWRs, and that stuff we will be talking about for a long time to come. But I have no reason to believe that any of that stuff will be divisive in any way. The divisive stuff is all at the beginning, getting over the hurdle of thinking that the conventional methodology studies offered the last word in SWR analysis. Get over that hurdle, and you get to the real fireworks--the good kind! Once we get over that hurdle, all talk of bad blood will be in the past and all we will have to worry about is what life-enriching insight we have gained access to we will want to talk over together next.
I am letting community members know that we are 99 percent finished with the hard part of this job, and that if you look up ahead a bit you can already catch a glimpse of the pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow. The SWR topic is not a bad topic. It is a wonderful topic. We just need to get past the divisiveness that has marked our dealings with that first big hurdle. The events of the past few days indicate that we are now inches away from achieving what we have all long wanted to achieve--resolution.
I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me. Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.
The part that is a little bit of a joke is the reference to the song "That's the Way God Planned It" (I know it from George Harrison's "Concert for Bangla Desh" album.)
The Retire Early point is that intercst and I have been the two most prominant screen-names in the Retire Early movement since its earliest days, and it would be silly for anyone to think that each of us won't be doing whatever he can to help the other take his work public and thereby bring new community members into the fold. Intercst has received a number of book offers, and I believe that someday he will put a book forward into the public arena. When he does, I will be extremely pleased to offer a blurb for the back cover endorsing it. I would view it as a small payback for the things I have learned from him over the years.
I have every reason to believe that intercst feels the same way, and that he will be sending me a blurb endorsing my book when I send him a note requesting one.
Now, if I endorse intercst's book, and he endorses my book, it's a little silly to think that there is some sort of "bad blood" between us, is it not? That's the point. There is no bad blood, so people should just stop worrying about it. It is a non-issue.
The issue on the table is--Does the historical data back up the JWR1945 findings or not? If it does, we can forget about all this silly Debate About Having a Debate nonsense. If the data backs up the claims, there is no purpose served anymore by posters putting forward comments that might appear to some to be some sort of evidence of "bad blood."
Once people become aware of what the data says, all this personal junk goes away. That's why I have been recommending for a long time that we just take a pass on the personal junk and focus on the data. The data tells the story. The easy way to solve this particular disagreement is to look at the data and see what it says. The true SWR is whatever the data says it is.
I am trying to offer an encouraging word. This is not hard. It is easy.
There is all sorts of stuff that follows from what the data says re SWRs, and that stuff we will be talking about for a long time to come. But I have no reason to believe that any of that stuff will be divisive in any way. The divisive stuff is all at the beginning, getting over the hurdle of thinking that the conventional methodology studies offered the last word in SWR analysis. Get over that hurdle, and you get to the real fireworks--the good kind! Once we get over that hurdle, all talk of bad blood will be in the past and all we will have to worry about is what life-enriching insight we have gained access to we will want to talk over together next.
I am letting community members know that we are 99 percent finished with the hard part of this job, and that if you look up ahead a bit you can already catch a glimpse of the pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow. The SWR topic is not a bad topic. It is a wonderful topic. We just need to get past the divisiveness that has marked our dealings with that first big hurdle. The events of the past few days indicate that we are now inches away from achieving what we have all long wanted to achieve--resolution.
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
*****,
Since you are 99% done with your 'project' would you mind sharing with the forum some information on your personal portfolio makeup currently?
I am only interested in the percentages and various asset classes that you now hold. Also what would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks. You can answer this one by comparing to the Dow (e.g. - Dow would have to hit 6500 before you'd buy stocks, at todays earnings levels)
Thanks
Since you are 99% done with your 'project' would you mind sharing with the forum some information on your personal portfolio makeup currently?
I am only interested in the percentages and various asset classes that you now hold. Also what would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks. You can answer this one by comparing to the Dow (e.g. - Dow would have to hit 6500 before you'd buy stocks, at todays earnings levels)
Thanks
I am only interested in the percentages and various asset classes that you now hold.
My three asset classes are (1) TIPS; (2) ibonds; and (3) CDs. I have significant amounts invested in each of these three asset classes.
What would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks.
I would need to feel comfortable that the stock purchase I was making was consistent with the 4 percent overall take-out number for my plan.
Say that you retired with a $10 million stash and that you only need $40,000 to live on. In that circumstance, I think that you will probably be fine with a big investment in stocks because, even if prices go down significantly, you don't face any serious danger that you plan is going to go bust as a result.
Now say that you retired with a $1 million stash and that you need $40,000 to live on. In that case, you may have a serious problem if you have a big percentage of your assets invested in stocks and if there is a big drop in prices.
The amount of slack in your plan influences the extent that you need to be concerned about the SWRs of the various asset classes. There is some slack in my plan, but not too much. If I had been invested 74 percent in stocks when I "retired" on August 1, 2000, I probably would be back in the work force today. It would have been irresponsible for me to have subjected my family to the sort of risk that ownership of a high-stock portfolio would have been subjecting them to.
The questions you are raising here relate to strategy; these are questions of how does one put the SWR to use in developing an effective Retire Early plan. These are great questions to discuss, but they are questions that are best discusssed after we have reached a consensus on what the data says the SWR is.
Until we reach a consensus on what the data says the number is, these sorts of discussions have a tendency to become highly confused. The problem is that different people are using the same words to refer to very different things. Some are working from the presumption that the data reveals a 4 percent withdrawal to be safe and others are working from the presumption that the data reveals only a 2 percent withdrawal to be safe.
It can't be both. The data has to say one of those two things and not the other, right? It would greatly aid the clarity of the discussions on strategy if we could reach a consensus on what the data actually says. Reaching a consensus on what the data says does not mean reaching a consensus on strategy questions. My guess is that there will always be healthy differences of opinion on strategy questions.
I think it would be a big step forward, however, if we could get to a place where we are all using defined terms of art to mean the same thing. The SWR is a data-based construct. It should not be so controversial a concept to talk about. The best way to go, it seems to me, is to take a look at what the data says and then let that be the number we use for the SWR in subsequent discussions.
My three asset classes are (1) TIPS; (2) ibonds; and (3) CDs. I have significant amounts invested in each of these three asset classes.
What would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks.
I would need to feel comfortable that the stock purchase I was making was consistent with the 4 percent overall take-out number for my plan.
Say that you retired with a $10 million stash and that you only need $40,000 to live on. In that circumstance, I think that you will probably be fine with a big investment in stocks because, even if prices go down significantly, you don't face any serious danger that you plan is going to go bust as a result.
Now say that you retired with a $1 million stash and that you need $40,000 to live on. In that case, you may have a serious problem if you have a big percentage of your assets invested in stocks and if there is a big drop in prices.
The amount of slack in your plan influences the extent that you need to be concerned about the SWRs of the various asset classes. There is some slack in my plan, but not too much. If I had been invested 74 percent in stocks when I "retired" on August 1, 2000, I probably would be back in the work force today. It would have been irresponsible for me to have subjected my family to the sort of risk that ownership of a high-stock portfolio would have been subjecting them to.
The questions you are raising here relate to strategy; these are questions of how does one put the SWR to use in developing an effective Retire Early plan. These are great questions to discuss, but they are questions that are best discusssed after we have reached a consensus on what the data says the SWR is.
Until we reach a consensus on what the data says the number is, these sorts of discussions have a tendency to become highly confused. The problem is that different people are using the same words to refer to very different things. Some are working from the presumption that the data reveals a 4 percent withdrawal to be safe and others are working from the presumption that the data reveals only a 2 percent withdrawal to be safe.
It can't be both. The data has to say one of those two things and not the other, right? It would greatly aid the clarity of the discussions on strategy if we could reach a consensus on what the data actually says. Reaching a consensus on what the data says does not mean reaching a consensus on strategy questions. My guess is that there will always be healthy differences of opinion on strategy questions.
I think it would be a big step forward, however, if we could get to a place where we are all using defined terms of art to mean the same thing. The SWR is a data-based construct. It should not be so controversial a concept to talk about. The best way to go, it seems to me, is to take a look at what the data says and then let that be the number we use for the SWR in subsequent discussions.
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
Hmmm,
I was hoping for a very simple answer, just for reference. Come on' *****, you're not running for office!
Something Like
____________________________________________
Currently TIPS - 30%, IBonds, 35%, and CDs 35%.
and at todays P/E levels the Dow would have to be in the 4000 - 5000 range for me to be interested in stocks.
_________________________________________
I don't want any more theory, I'm just interested in what you're doing with it? - Can you try to answer my question again in Just a sentence or two?
I was hoping for a very simple answer, just for reference. Come on' *****, you're not running for office!
Something Like
____________________________________________
Currently TIPS - 30%, IBonds, 35%, and CDs 35%.
and at todays P/E levels the Dow would have to be in the 4000 - 5000 range for me to be interested in stocks.
_________________________________________
I don't want any more theory, I'm just interested in what you're doing with it? - Can you try to answer my question again in Just a sentence or two?
Similar threads
