Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Another withdrawal thread
Old 04-15-2021, 05:52 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 180
Another withdrawal thread

Hypothetically, if you have $3 million portfolio made up of 70% stocks and 30% bonds and wish to embark on a 5% withdrawal rate then what it the general thinking on he drawdown from each category? Would you take 50% of your needs out of each, or a weighted withdrawal based on the category and rebalance at the same time. Thinking of a once a year lump sum withdrawal.
thepalmersinking 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 04-15-2021, 06:25 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,184
First, I would turn off reinvestment of dividends and CG distributions and use that as part of my 5%. To get the rest I'd weight withdrawals to bring my portfolio back to my desired AA.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 07:00 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
PaunchyPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: NW Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,803
Personally, I do as RunningBum says. But if you prefer to do once-a-year withdrawal, then I would withdraw from the investment(s) that will help you rebalance back to your desired allocation. That could be from one investment or multiple depending on what has happened to your allocation due to market conditions.
PaunchyPirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 07:55 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
The Cosmic Avenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 2,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
First, I would turn off reinvestment of dividends and CG distributions and use that as part of my 5%. To get the rest I'd weight withdrawals to bring my portfolio back to my desired AA.
Does it matter if it was taxable or a tax-advantaged account? I know this makes sense for a taxable account, since you have to pay income tax on those distributions whether you reinvest or not; in fact, I've been doing that in our taxable account and just using it for spending money. (Our distributions are low and the taxable account is still growing.) But for a tax-advantaged account, all withdrawals are counted the same no matter where they come from, no STCG, so I lean towards reinvesting in the short term. But please tell me why I'm wrong, that's how I learn.
__________________
-Looking to FIRE in the mid-2020s, which would be our mid-50s.
The Cosmic Avenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 08:09 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
PaunchyPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: NW Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cosmic Avenger View Post
Does it matter if it was taxable or a tax-advantaged account? I know this makes sense for a taxable account, since you have to pay income tax on those distributions whether you reinvest or not; in fact, I've been doing that in our taxable account and just using it for spending money. (Our distributions are low and the taxable account is still growing.) But for a tax-advantaged account, all withdrawals are counted the same no matter where they come from, no STCG, so I lean towards reinvesting in the short term. But please tell me why I'm wrong, that's how I learn.
I'm not RunningBum, but from my perspective, you are correct.
PaunchyPirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 08:15 AM   #6
Moderator
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,622
Sell whichever one exceeds the AA target. If that isn't enough, sell 70% stock 30% bond. The net result is that you're back at 70/30.
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 10:52 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cosmic Avenger View Post
Does it matter if it was taxable or a tax-advantaged account? I know this makes sense for a taxable account, since you have to pay income tax on those distributions whether you reinvest or not; in fact, I've been doing that in our taxable account and just using it for spending money. (Our distributions are low and the taxable account is still growing.) But for a tax-advantaged account, all withdrawals are counted the same no matter where they come from, no STCG, so I lean towards reinvesting in the short term. But please tell me why I'm wrong, that's how I learn.
It can matter. I'm under 59.5, so I'm not withdrawing at all from IRAs, so I reinvest dividends in my IRAs. If I was withdrawing from IRAs, I'd probably not reinvest.

Your point about not having to worry about STCGs is accurate, but if I was going to be withdrawing cash from an IRA in the near future, I'd probably rather have it in cash in my IRA. I haven't fully thought that through yet for myself. I don't see a problem with reinvesting dividends and staying fully invested right up until you need the cash.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2021, 11:42 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 37,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepalmersinking View Post
Hypothetically, if you have $3 million portfolio made up of 70% stocks and 30% bonds and wish to embark on a 5% withdrawal rate then what it the general thinking on he drawdown from each category? Would you take 50% of your needs out of each, or a weighted withdrawal based on the category and rebalance at the same time. Thinking of a once a year lump sum withdrawal.
I let all mutual fund distributions go to cash, which I then leave in my retirement portfolio until the next Jan. This is usually enough to cover my Jan withdrawal which is more like 3.5% of taxable investments or 3% including our IRAs. So I’m not trying to meet 5%. After withdrawing my annual income from cash, I then rebalance my retirement portfolio to my target AA.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2021, 12:09 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepalmersinking View Post
Hypothetically, if you have $3 million portfolio made up of 70% stocks and 30% bonds and wish to embark on a 5% withdrawal rate then what it the general thinking on he drawdown from each category? Would you take 50% of your needs out of each, or a weighted withdrawal based on the category and rebalance at the same time. Thinking of a once a year lump sum withdrawal.
First, a 5% WR might or might not be sustainable. This is far more important to assess than the question you actually asked.

As for your question, withdraw however is convenient, and rebalance periodically (every year or so seems to be fine) back to 70/30. Avoid rebalancing in taxable accounts as much as possible.

I reinvest dividends in tax-deferred and do not reinvest dividends in taxable. Taxable dividends just go into the spending stream.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2021, 12:24 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Finance Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,854
More than one way to skin a withdrawal strategy...but I think like audrey does since we are heavy in cash....I take the withdrawal from cash, then rebalance the portfolio...which is pretty easy since we have relatively few different investments.
__________________
"Live every day as if it were your last, and one day you'll be right" - unknown
Finance Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 10:49 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 4,321
In addition to what has been said by the other contributors to this thread, you may want to consider that the survivability of a portfolio doesn't change as greatly as one may think, over a fairly wide range of AA's, though the potential volatility will.

In other words, IMO, it's not worth going to a great deal of trouble to adjust your AA to precise figures. After all, a subsequent change in the market could very well throw it out of whack for another year (and probably will). Personally, I'm comfortable with a variation in my stock allocation from about 50% up to 75%, which lessens the need for conscious rebalancing, other than that provided by my annual fund sales. The greater your need for a specific AA, the more attention you'll have to pay to your rebalancing strategy.
__________________
Contentedly ER, with 3 furry friends (now, sadly, 1).
Planning my escape to the wide open spaces in my campervan (with my remaining kitty, of course!)
On a mission to become the world's second most boring man.

Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 11:21 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
In addition to what has been said by the other contributors to this thread, you may want to consider that the survivability of a portfolio doesn't change as greatly as one may think, over a fairly wide range of AA's, though the potential volatility will.
How much historical survivability depends on AA is in turn dependent on the historical survivability of the WR in the first place. The lower the WR, the lower the dependence.

Someone with a 1% WR can probably have anything from a 0/100 to a 100/0. Someone with a 4% to 5% WR may find their historical survivability is notably higher between, say 40/60 and 70/30.

You are right, though, that there is typically a broad plateau of maximal historical survivability that is usually in the middle of the AA range somewhere and tails off to lower success rates towards the 0/100 and 100/0 ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
In other words, IMO, it's not worth going to a great deal of trouble to adjust your AA to precise figures. After all, a subsequent change in the market could very well throw it out of whack for another year (and probably will). Personally, I'm comfortable with a variation in my stock allocation from about 50% up to 75%, which lessens the need for conscious rebalancing, other than that provided by my annual fund sales. The greater your need for a specific AA, the more attention you'll have to pay to your rebalancing strategy.
It's nice to have a band like that, as long as you're comfortable with the historical survivability percentages across the entire range.

Oddly enough, with a very high stock allocation and a moderately wide band, one doesn't need to reallocate very often at all. I'm 97/3 now, and I did rebalance during the market correction last spring, but other than that I don't think I've rebalanced in quite a few years. (I did coincidentally allow my target AA to drift upward from IIRC 95/5 to 97/3, so that has helped me be lazy.)
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 11:59 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 4,321
Thank you for the clarification SecondCor521. My WR tends to lie within the range of 2 - 3%. I wasn't considering higher or lower WR's, though you are correct. A 1% WR is enviable!
__________________
Contentedly ER, with 3 furry friends (now, sadly, 1).
Planning my escape to the wide open spaces in my campervan (with my remaining kitty, of course!)
On a mission to become the world's second most boring man.

Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 05:17 AM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hilton Head Island
Posts: 325
If you are doing a once/year withdrawal from tax advantage accounts, and you rebalance once/year, it does not matter where you take your funds from, the rebalancing straightens everything out.

If you are taking dividends and CG from your tax advantage accounts, then you are not actually taking funds out once/year...but again, rebalancing puts everything back to normal, no matter how you handle the dividends and CG.

The taxable accounts, however, might provide some tax relief if there is a tax difference between LTCG/Dividends and your marginal tax rate...make sure you include state taxes when you do this comparison.

Money is money, no matter if you take your funds out in $5 bills, or $100 bills...the market and inflation will more likely determine what you accounts are worth in the future, rather than how you withdraw your funds...IMHO.
levindb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 09:13 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 17,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
First, I would turn off reinvestment of dividends and CG distributions and use that as part of my 5%. To get the rest I'd weight withdrawals to bring my portfolio back to my desired AA.
+1

RB's comment is precise and to the point. One can festoon it with a lot of crepe and ribbons, but all that does is add confusion.
__________________
Comparison is the thief of joy

The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 11:55 AM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondCor521 View Post
How much historical survivability depends on AA is in turn dependent on the historical survivability of the WR in the first place. The lower the WR, the lower the dependence.

Someone with a 1% WR can probably have anything from a 0/100 to a 100/0. Someone with a 4% to 5% WR may find their historical survivability is notably higher between, say 40/60 and 70/30.

You are right, though, that there is typically a broad plateau of maximal historical survivability that is usually in the middle of the AA range somewhere and tails off to lower success rates towards the 0/100 and 100/0 ends. ....
FIRECalc shows something a little different.

A 1% WR survives anything, so we can't really glean any info from that. Moving the WR up to 2.7% over 30 years triggers a few failures below 5/95 AA.

Going up to 5% WR, the success rate just keeps increasing with increasing AA, right up to 100/0.

At 4%, there is a slight drop at 75/25 and another at 95/5, the max success is flat between 55/45 and 70/30. But the success rate at 40/60 carries all the way to 100/0.

-ERD50
Attached Images
File Type: png 2_7-PCWD_30_YEARS_AA_.png (35.1 KB, 32 views)
File Type: png 4_0-PCWD_30-YEARS_AA_.png (46.2 KB, 32 views)
File Type: png 5_0-PCWD_30-YEARS_AA_.png (41.6 KB, 34 views)
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 12:53 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,863
^ That's why I used the terms "may" and "typically" in my response. Maybe "typically" was too strong, as that's based on my particular FIREcalc data inputs.

If you look at 40 year periods, use a spending level that is about 95% safe, and include a solid amount of SS (which are my particular inputs), then you will find that there is a middle plateau with some tailing off at the right side of the graph. I suspect the effect would be even more pronounced with shorter time durations (like 10 years or 20 years), as in those scenarios there are timeframes where higher stock AAs fail due to steep dropoffs early in the period (like 1987, 2000, 2008).

But you've illustrated the larger point, which is that people should (a) look at their own situations in FIREcalc or their preferred tools, and (b) not take other people's or other tool's word for stuff.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 01:43 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondCor521 View Post
^ That's why I used the terms "may" and "typically" in my response. Maybe "typically" was too strong, as that's based on my particular FIREcalc data inputs.

If you look at 40 year periods, use a spending level that is about 95% safe, and include a solid amount of SS (which are my particular inputs), then you will find that there is a middle plateau with some tailing off at the right side of the graph. I suspect the effect would be even more pronounced with shorter time durations (like 10 years or 20 years), as in those scenarios there are timeframes where higher stock AAs fail due to steep dropoffs early in the period (like 1987, 2000, 2008).

But you've illustrated the larger point, which is that people should (a) look at their own situations in FIREcalc or their preferred tools, and (b) not take other people's or other tool's word for stuff.
If you are saying that the AA success curve will vary with how many years you are looking at sure, and as you say, short time frames will be bad for high stock AA - not enough time to recover from a dip.

But "may" and "typically" strike me as rather odd to describe historical data - it returns values, the same values every time.

I also think you are confusing things by bringing SS into the discussion of AA vs portfolio success. Since SS is modeled as inflation adjusted, it is just a straight reduction n the withdraw rate of the portfolio. As an example, the AA/success curve should look exactly the same for someone who start with a $1M portfolio and $20,000 spend (2% WR), and someone who has a $40,000 spend and $20,000 SS. The AA curve doesn't change due to SS, it changes because SS brought the WR back down to 2%.

Sure, with SS your income never drops to zero (assuming SS doesn't fail), but if we define "failure" the same (your portfolio going to zero), the curves are all the same.

OK, most of the above can be seen as just quibbling over semantics. I only go there because I think it's important we are all talking the same language. The important take away that we both see, is that portfolio success is not very sensitive to AA above ~ 40/60. It's one of those things that has helped me to be more like Alfred E. Neuman ("What, me worry?"). I love the fact that most of this financial analysis says you can be loose and lazy - just stay with low cost broad indexes, maybe rebalance, maybe not, and you are probably as good or better than someone who tinkers with it.

I've only actively rebalanced a couple times in over 15 years. Even once I'm taking SS/pension, I can probably rebalance as part of selling for RMDs, and rarely ever actively rebalance (by "active", I mean do it outside of just selling to meet expenses).

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2021, 02:53 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
If you are saying that the AA success curve will vary with how many years you are looking at sure, and as you say, short time frames will be bad for high stock AA - not enough time to recover from a dip.

But "may" and "typically" strike me as rather odd to describe historical data - it returns values, the same values every time.
I agree that FIREcalc is deterministic and returns the same values every time...for a given set of inputs. What my "may"/"typically" was referring to is that varying inputs will give you varying success curves. The previous poster I was quoting seemed to be making broad statements about the shape of those success curves, and I thought they were overly broad to the point of potentially being misleading to someone with different inputs. I was also acknowledging that my statements about the shapes of those curves were also generalities, and hinting that people should consider their own particular inputs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I also think you are confusing things by bringing SS into the discussion of AA vs portfolio success. Since SS is modeled as inflation adjusted, it is just a straight reduction n the withdraw rate of the portfolio. As an example, the AA/success curve should look exactly the same for someone who start with a $1M portfolio and $20,000 spend (2% WR), and someone who has a $40,000 spend and $20,000 SS. The AA curve doesn't change due to SS, it changes because SS brought the WR back down to 2%.

Sure, with SS your income never drops to zero (assuming SS doesn't fail), but if we define "failure" the same (your portfolio going to zero), the curves are all the same.
I only brought SS into it to explain why I saw FIREcalc success curves with a plateau in the middle and falling off to either side.

Your statements above are generally true if a person is already on SS. For someone like me who is age 52 and planning to take SS at age 70, I am not sure they are, because each of those 120+ FIREcalc cycles each have two segments - the first 18 years where I'm not on SS and the last N-18 where I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, most of the above can be seen as just quibbling over semantics. I only go there because I think it's important we are all talking the same language. The important take away that we both see, is that portfolio success is not very sensitive to AA above ~ 40/60. It's one of those things that has helped me to be more like Alfred E. Neuman ("What, me worry?"). I love the fact that most of this financial analysis says you can be loose and lazy - just stay with low cost broad indexes, maybe rebalance, maybe not, and you are probably as good or better than someone who tinkers with it.

I've only actively rebalanced a couple times in over 15 years. Even once I'm taking SS/pension, I can probably rebalance as part of selling for RMDs, and rarely ever actively rebalance (by "active", I mean do it outside of just selling to meet expenses).

-ERD50
I agree with pretty much all of the above, with the one minor caveat that the sensitivity to AA above ~ 40/60 is typically true for "longer" time periods, like 20 to 40 years, and not necessarily so for "shorter" time periods, like 10 years. Pretty much everyone here is probably running "longer" time period analyses, but I sometimes run "shorter" time periods to analyze things related to my Dad's situation (he's 85).
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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
Yet another guide to withdrawal rates explanade FIRE and Money 27 03-30-2017 10:40 AM
Yet another withdrawal strategy thread NameRedacted FIRE and Money 40 02-22-2017 09:23 AM
Another withdrawal article: There is hope! Chuckanut FIRE and Money 6 11-24-2011 09:25 AM
Another safe withdrawal rate question arandomwalk07 FIRE and Money 52 04-04-2007 09:46 AM
Another twists on portfolio withdrawal Martha FIRE and Money 18 01-18-2007 05:25 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.