Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
1.9% instead of 4% the new safe withdrawal rate?
Old 10-01-2022, 05:45 PM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 938
1.9% instead of 4% the new safe withdrawal rate?

Interesting article from Barron Regarding a study which says the new safe withdrawal rate is closer to 1.9%

The authors come to this conclusion based on longer lifespans and after evaluating data from a wide range of sources.

Seems conservative to me even with today’s inflation. But then…

https://apple.news/AyBqJctIMQ5mB6wSRU3TGGA
bizlady 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 10-01-2022, 05:59 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 9,978
I don't buy it.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 06:46 PM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5,001
You can't change the rate and then call that rate safe, because changing the rate means the whole process is suspect.

What makes 1.9% safe? Why is that safer than 2.174%?

What if inflation next year is 76%...will 1.9% be safe?
Fermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 06:54 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RobbieB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Central CA
Posts: 8,628
Another thing not to worry about.
__________________
Retired at 59 in 2014. Should have done it sooner but I worried too much.
RobbieB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 07:01 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,126
If one believes the 1.8% number, then over 30 years, TIPS at current yields would provide a greater than 4% safe withdrawal rate.
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 07:24 PM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 25,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizlady View Post
Interesting article from Barron Regarding a study which says the new safe withdrawal rate is closer to 1.9%

The authors come to this conclusion based on longer lifespans and after evaluating data from a wide range of sources.

Seems conservative to me even with today’s inflation. But then…

https://apple.news/AyBqJctIMQ5mB6wSRU3TGGA
Well, it's not apples-to-apples then, is it?

The 4% number was for a 30 year retirement, and included 5% failures (95% success).

Want 100% success? Reduce the WR. Want > 30 years? Reduce the WR.

Your link doesn't work for me, so I'm not sure what the article actually said. 2nd try worked for some reason, I'll take a peek.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 07:28 PM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 25,509
OK, first line is suspect:

Quote:
Retirees and near-retirees have known for some time that the famed 4% rule needs to be revised downwards. But by how much?
We have? If I run FIRECalc, or equivalent, the historical SWR has not changed for a 30 year retirement. The period starting 1966 is still the worst year, so nothing recent has changed that.

What are they talking about?

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 08:46 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
USGrant1962's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: DC area
Posts: 2,114
I saw that study a couple of days ago, it's nonsensical. It incorporates all international SWRs that it can (OK so far), like Poland, Greece, Germany and Japan. Fair enough. But then it runs data right through WW1 and WW2 and averages everything together in a Monte Carlo sim. At least they retain some asset correlations so it doesn't go off the fat tail rails as much as most MC sims.

They claim they are correcting for survivor bias, but that makes no sense in calculating a withdrawal rate. Sorry but if your country gets conquered/flattened in a World War, 1.9% ain't gonna save your retirement. Poor study.

Many retirement calculators (FIRECalc, for example) and analysts (e.g. ERN) can/have looked at longer retirements and that in itself in no way forces SWR down anywhere near 1.9%, or even 2.26% that they mention as 5% failure for a couple.

Here's the paper if you want to dig in: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4227132
__________________
FI and Semi-ER March 24, 2017
Consulting to stay engaged

"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George Box
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem: neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
USGrant1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2022, 08:55 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,316
For 100% certainty let’s just have a 0% SWR.
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 04:05 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Morton
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
For 100% certainty let’s just have a 0% SWR.
That might work, as long as one doesn't live too long........

__________________
Retired May 13th(Friday) 2016 at age 61.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 04:44 AM   #11
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
For 100% certainty let’s just have a 0% SWR.
That is too high. You might still lose every penny.
HawkOwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 06:25 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,185
Like so many things surrounding investing, a maximum SWR Rate for any given retirement period can only be known in hindsight. And because you can't know what that will be ahead of time, it means that guessing at something lower than that in order to be conservative, is also still just a guess. That there is currently a worst case SWR rate from the past doesn't mean that it's the worst that could ever happen in the future.

There are many withdrawal methods better than SWR, in my opinion, but each one of them has its own pros and cons.

Cheers.
big-papa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 06:26 AM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 18,836
Yawn…
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 50% equity funds / 40% bonds / 10% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 06:45 AM   #14
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 19,749
Don't retire at all. Problem solved.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 06:51 AM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by USGrant1962 View Post
I saw that study a couple of days ago, it's nonsensical. It incorporates all international SWRs that it can (OK so far), like Poland, Greece, Germany and Japan. Fair enough. But then it runs data right through WW1 and WW2 and averages everything together in a Monte Carlo sim. At least they retain some asset correlations so it doesn't go off the fat tail rails as much as most MC sims.

They claim they are correcting for survivor bias, but that makes no sense in calculating a withdrawal rate. Sorry but if your country gets conquered/flattened in a World War, 1.9% ain't gonna save your retirement. Poor study.

Many retirement calculators (FIRECalc, for example) and analysts (e.g. ERN) can/have looked at longer retirements and that in itself in no way forces SWR down anywhere near 1.9%, or even 2.26% that they mention as 5% failure for a couple.

Here's the paper if you want to dig in: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4227132
100% agree. I think they had several noble ideas, but made odd choices and combined them in funny ways. Probably should have questioned their methodology when they got such weird results rather than rushing to publish.

Historical data is always plagued by the fact that there are very few independent long term cycles and by definition the oldest data are from long ago, so don't seem very pertinent. The authors tried to get around this by broadening the data to include other countries. It's certainly worth thinking about whether recent US history was a one-time golden period, where we transitioned from an agrarian country to the preeminent power and that perhaps reversion to the less-than-exciting returns of the rest of the world might be more representative of future returns.

But each country has different government structures, laws, customs, technological progress, demographics, resources, geography, etc. So inclusion of those to project US returns is really questionable and much of the paper strikes me as "thinking past the sale" on that point.

For instance, take the example highlighted by USGrant1962, gauging adequacy of retirement assets by averaging in disasters that can't be mitigated with retirement assets doesn't make sense.

Also, the criterion they used to include a country's data was once they had less than 50% agrarian workers. I struggle to see the relevance to gauge future US returns.

Taking other countries as independent observations seems odd too since they all experienced the same historical events. But each country's place in the world was so different that I'm not sure what got measured, I suspect nothing useful. Even if this were valid, surely statistically you would have to weight by population, rather than by the number of country names on the list.

So I don't see this study as adding to our knowledge.
Exchme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 07:57 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,208
These types of articles always come out when markets are weak.

Go look at what similar articles were saying in 2008-2009...same kind of things.
njhowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 08:16 AM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,318
What happened to common sense?

If you feel squeezed, watch your budget, reduce discretionary, and be somewhat flexible.
__________________
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
MarieIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 12:35 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, first line is suspect:

We have? If I run FIRECalc, or equivalent, the historical SWR has not changed for a 30 year retirement. The period starting 1966 is still the worst year, so nothing recent has changed that.

What are they talking about?

-ERD50
We have had threads about Bengen, the father of the 4% WR, recently saying that "this time, it's different".
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 12:39 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
For 100% certainty let’s just have a 0% SWR.

Heck, long before this market rout there were posters who said that they did not spend all of their SS and/or pension, and still managed to save.

That's a negative WR for you spendthrifts.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2022, 05:03 PM   #20
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mpls
Posts: 107
Im not buying it, spent enough time on the treadmill, will take my chances with 4%. Always tell my kids to buy a comfy couch!

I will admit the clooser I get to 60 I really don't care, it is what it is. My great grand parents lived in a sod house on the range, think we will be ok!
SJhawkins 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
Another safe withdrawal rate question arandomwalk07 FIRE and Money 52 04-04-2007 09:46 AM
Safe withdrawal rate questions jhecht FIRE and Money 7 12-18-2006 02:53 PM
"Is the Safe Withdrawal Rate TOO Safe?" Nords FIRE and Money 13 10-20-2004 10:36 AM
Safe Withdrawal Rate for living like a chicken cute fuzzy bunny Other topics 4 07-10-2004 05:59 PM
'Son with a spare room' safe withdrawal rate intercst FIRE and Money 16 07-02-2004 10:41 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.