Single F 53 No kids $700,000 investments with low expenses annually, can I retire?

[4legsgood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynne3560 Stocks consist of Apple, At&t, Broadcom, Cisco, Duke Energy, Enbridge, Exxon, FMC Corp, JPMorgan, Keysight Technologies, Livent, Medtronic, Pfizer, Raytheon Technologies, Regions Financial, Trimble Navigation, Truist Financial, UPS and Disney. Mutual Funds and IRAs: American Europacific, American Fundamental, American Growth, American Funds of America, Hartford Midcap. State of Ohio. Go Bucks!

You could harvest long term capital gains on your taxable stock to raise your MAGI for ACA purposes. That would also make it convenient to move toward low cost index funds if you wanted. I also retired early due to stressful job, and I did some dog sitting to alleviate the strange new stress of having no income stream. I'm used to it now though and don't need to do the dog sitting.

[Ramen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredHappy A serious question to all. I have read on various threads to get amount above Medicaid level so that you can get on Silver plan and get max subsidies. Is Medicaid all that bad? I guess it depends on the state and the provider? I know of someone on Medicaid and with Kaiser in CA, pays nothing... seems like a win-win.

Yes, it depends on the state. The OP is in Ohio, which has an expanded Medicaid plan with some features still in limbo during the pandemic.

My state has an "excellent" expanded Medicaid plan, according to an acquaintance who was on it for a while during some lean times. I asked my doctor about it at my last physical, and he confirmed that it's great coverage, no need to avoid it if one qualifies for it.

[GTFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Assuming for a moment that she will not need to sell stock into a seriously down market, where is the risk? Volatility is not risk. Every single down market in history has been followed by a recovery, sometimes in a short period, sometimes longer, but always there.

SORR, since OP will be living off the 100% stock allocation in 2023. Yes, we all know stocks outperform over time and as I said OP will likely be fine. Not a risk I would take, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynne3560 Mutual Funds and IRAs: American Europacific, American Fundamental, American Growth, American Funds of America, Hartford Midcap.

OP those are some high fee meh performance funds in the IRAs. You'd be better served swapping them out for low cost indexes.

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTFan SORR, since OP will be living off the 100% stock allocation in 2023. ...

Well, another way I could have said it is "Assuming the OP has enough liquidity to protect well against SORR ..." Volatility is a risk only when a bad bounce meets a need to sell equities. IOW, SORR. Very commonly, though, people conflate risk with volatility in a general way and I think it leads to non-optimal decisions.

[GTFan]

OP does not have that liquidity, judging by the posts. Her greatest advantage is the low spend per year, which helps this a lot.

[Time2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTFan 90+% stock? Good luck, you'll likely be fine but I wouldn't take that risk because you have little margin for error.

There was a 10 year period with very little growth, (1.2%). Her $700,000 would not look so good after 10 yrs of spending and inflation.
However, Pete retired on $700k, how many year ago was that? and how many 100,000 dollars per year did his blog make?

Answer 4.

Sorry, I'd like to see more in your portfolio.

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTFan OP does not have that liquidity, judging by the posts. ...

A couple of mouse clicks fixes that. She is not stupid.

But why are you chewing on this? You haven't shown that anything I have said was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time2 There was a 10 year period with very little growth, (1.2%). ...

I am too lazy to chase it down but that doesn't sound like a total return number, just sticker price. Do you know? Guessing a total return number would be more like 3%+ Still not great but double the sticker price number.

[Time2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter A couple of mouse clicks fixes that. She is not stupid. But why are you chewing on this? You haven't shown that anything I have said was wrong. I am too lazy to chase it down but that doesn't sound like a total return number, just sticker price. Do you know? Guessing a total return number would be more like 3%+ Still not great but double the sticker price number.

You have a point, and I was also to lazy to find that out, so now I have reexamined it. What I found was a worse period (using the S&P) than what I originally quoted. Feb 1999 to Feb 2009 with dividend reinvestment returned a negative 35.4%. Whew, glad I have a short memory
I used this calculator.

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time2 You have a point, and I was also to lazy to find that out, so now I have reexamined it. What I found was a worse period (using the S&P) than what I originally quoted. Feb 1999 to Feb 2009 with dividend reinvestment returned a negative 35.4%. Whew, glad I have a short memory I used this calculator. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

Hmm ... if I did it right, the total return number is -23 vs the -35 which appears to be a sticker price number. Annualized -4.276 vs -2.658. So the divs propped it up by 1.6%. Still no fun. There definitely those pathological cases out there in history. IICR there was another one in the '30s before WWII.

[Out-to-Lunch]

Or consider the well-known "Lost Decade." From Jan 2000 to Dec 2009, a starting balance of $10,000 in SPY would have gotten you an ending balance of $9,036 (CAGR of -1.0%). (This is a total return number.)

[Time2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Hmm ... if I did it right, the total return number is -23 vs the -35 which appears to be a sticker price number. Annualized -4.276 vs -2.658. So the divs propped it up by 1.6%. Still no fun. There definitely those pathological cases out there in history. IICR there was another one in the '30s before WWII.

Yep in my haste I didn't read enough to know which line to use.
But as you say, "Still no fun."
Also it looks like Dec, 65 to Dec, 74 returned a negative 1.4% including dividends.

Chart showing Feb 1999 to Feb 2009.

[Koolau]

^^^

Such a sequence of returns certainly DOES argue for not only wide diversification, but a significant chunk of cash-like assets to weather such a long storm. Without regular income, living on invested assets could become quite scary. Of course, the data from the past suggests it is doable with the appropriate WDR. I just couldn't depend upon it myself - data be darned! YMMV

[Out-to-Lunch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau Such a sequence of returns certainly DOES argue for not only wide diversification, but a significant chunk of cash-like assets to weather such a long storm.

Yes, you might even say that, in many cases involving the decumulation plans of real people, that volatility does, in fact, induce risk.

[GTFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter A couple of mouse clicks fixes that. She is not stupid. But why are you chewing on this? You haven't shown that anything I have said was wrong.

There's nothing more to discuss, I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong. Simply pointing out SORR as you are well aware, given OP's portfolio and dependence on it by mid-2023.