The 4% article that started it all?

[ormondroyd]

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone with the facts. Still the withdrawal percentage Vanguard projects is way off the mark- historically or by Monte Carlo simulation if one likes , as far as their balanced fund goes. It was a sad day when I lost faith in Saint Jack. *Time to go sailing!

[intercst]

Quote:

HYPERBOREA, et al * * * * * * * * * * * *Yeah, *I know- there's Paul Samuelson and me on one side of this question. What I want to know is what all the folks with equities are going to do when they run dry in twenty years or so... * Unlikely right? www.fpanet.org *and *take *a look at * May 2003 issue, *R.L. *Terry. *It is painful to hear the conventional wisdom trumpeted so loudly. *A 2% I bond would sustain a withdrawal of 4.4% for thirty years and those 3% ones 5.0%. I don't know of a law that mandates I spend it all within the thirty years. I don't know of many who consider inflation indexed securities fixed income in the traditional sense. * * * * * * * * *

I looked at the Jahnke article in the May 2003 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning. I don't see much difference in it from the articles I read in 1980 telling me to dump equities and buy gold because Japan was going to own the world.

I agree with uncleremick. A balanced portfolio with equities and fixed income is likely to outperform the contrarians over the long term.

intercst

I don't care (if equities outperform). The key word here
is "likely". Likely doesn't buy the groceries. If it
was "likely" with a 95% certainty, I still would own no
stocks. Don't need 'em! Don't want 'em!

John Galt

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hey fred.

You werent confusing me with any facts. Probably because what I read wasnt fact, but opinion. And you're certainly entitled to yours.

But unless you have a time machine or can fortell the future, guessing at what might happen after today isnt particularly factual.

I *am* very intrigued by your facts on ibonds though. I sincerely want to buy some of these 2 and 3% ibonds. Where do I get them? The fed is currently selling 1% ibonds, and they arent available to buy on the secondary market.

Do tell!

Also, who is saint jack? Do you mean saint john?

Not to mention, are you really counting on the feds inflation calculation?

They've been telling us for several years now that inflation was under 3%.

Hmm...a good steak used to be $3.99 a lb here. Now its $7.99. Gas was $1.60, now its $2.10. Milk was $1.50 a gallon, now its $1.95. Eggs were $1.25 a gallon, now they're $1.75. A lot of change for just a couple of years.

The MSRP on the truck I bought four years ago was $28k and change. The new model is $38k and change. My old house was worth $300k eight years ago, and $400k four years ago. I sold it last year for a half million.

So I dont know what the fed is smokin', but counting on their indexes for inflation protection doesnt look like a bright idea to me...

[unclemick]

Pontification - I predict all the passionate poster's will have a successful ER. Only if we all end up in the same rest home in thirty years will we be able to look back and see who did - more better.

For now I'll stick with the horse I rode in on. And I'll keep an eye on Vanguard Target Retirement Income(for my old age) - 25% inflation protected securities: clearly an overweight position. Due diligence and mastering what you are comfortable with is the key - IMHO - hence I avoid real estate and individual fixed income securities - areas where others have done well.

Hell, all I have is real estate and fixed income securities, but like you said...........

My wife works in a nursing home. She is afraid that when she is finished there they will just take her to her
room

John Galt

[ormondroyd]

Well, here it is five years later. Hope all you floggers of stocks and admirers of balanced funds are happy. Who could have known? To parphrase Schopenhauer: the average man prepares for what has happened in the past and the superior one tries to imagine what COULD happen. The current mess being a fine example. It is rude to gloat, but schadenfreude is seductive. Fred

[REWahoo]

Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.

[unclemick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ormondroyd Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone with the facts. Still the withdrawal percentage Vanguard projects is way off the mark- historically or by Monte Carlo simulation if one likes , as far as their balanced fund goes. It was a sad day when I lost faith in Saint Jack. *Time to go sailing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.

Stayed the course with Saint Jack. 16th yr of ER. Plus they split off(Bogleheads) to a forum the doesn't charge 5 bucks.

Twenty pounds heavier and a new State post Katrina - and can't be a cheap bastard anymore cause the clock ticks on and 'I have yet to see a U-Haul behind a hearse.'

All praise to Mr B - and of course to this forum.

heh heh heh - We can hand this forum atta boys cause there are plenty of ah - s*^t nay sayers nowadays.

[Gone4Good]

Over the past 5 years a 60/40 portfolio rebalanced annually is down a whopping 12%.

From this point in the Great Depression (judged by PE-10) stocks returned 250bp more than current treasury yields over the succeeding 10 years. Many other periods in history did much, much better. In the earlier-referenced 1901-1916 period once stocks reached current valuations they returned 10% annually over the next 10 years. And during the 1966-1982 period, by the time stocks got this cheap they returned nearly 12% annually over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile 10-yr treasuries will return 2.89%

This isn't a sprint but a marathon. I like my chances of making up lost ground from here.

And I certainly like the idea of rebalancing out of treasuries and into the higher yielding SPX.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ormondroyd It is rude to gloat

And when you *know* it's rude and you do it anyway, that's a pretty telling statement about an individual. Not to mention resurrecting threads that were dead for nearly five years to do it.

[haha]

I like it when old threads get re-visited. For one thing, we get to see how the personalities posting and the tenor of the board has changed over time.

Also many people like this guy were right, at least for a while, but were dismissed or at times even treated rudely. I think they do a service when they return to point out that at least in the intermediate time frame a lot of us emporers were running around naked.

It is actually ignorant to pretend that there is an answer to the problem of funding a long retirement. Maybe having our noses rubbed in poop might help us understand this idea.

Ha

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I like it when old threads get re-visited. For one thing, we get to see how the personalities posting and the tenor of the board has changed over time. Also many people like this guy were right, at least for a while, but were dismissed or at times even treated rudely.

This is true, but I think the ones that were being "treated rudely" were more often than not chiding the rest of us as blind morons for not seeing what was "obviously" coming ahead -- not just being bearish. These are the ones who were sometimes shouted down.

And to derive enjoyment and schadenfreude from the broken retirement dreams of people who disagreed with you is still a rather telling statement about personal character.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha It is actually ignorant to pretend that there is an answer to the problem of funding a long retirement. Maybe having our noses rubbed in poop might help us understand this idea.

Ha, I'll happily let you have my share of the poop rubbing.

[unclemick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I like it when old threads get re-visited. For one thing, we get to see how the personalities posting and the tenor of the board has changed over time. Also many people like this guy were right, at least for a while, but were dismissed or at times even treated rudely. I think they do a service when they return to point out that at least in the intermediate time frame a lot of us emporers were running around naked. It is actually ignorant to pretend that there is an answer to the problem of funding a long retirement. Maybe having our noses rubbed in poop might help us understand this idea. Ha

I'm waiting for the real estate(landlord types) to get some respect. Plus the 'more pure' straight index 60/40, 70/30 total index mixes have been examined on other forums taking out 4% index adjusted every year and show some puny/shall we say chewy results depending on the start year selected.

Norwegian widow dividend wise plus varying take out(aka cut spending) helped.

Theoretical purity is great spreadsheet wise - but a little sin among friends can really stretch the retirement dollar and is kinda fun.

heh heh heh - plus living long enough for early SS.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.

Only a few posts and five years apart. That has to be a record in both communications discipline and at holding a grudge...

[ejman]

I dunno, I ER'd December 2002 following the dumb and simpleton approach of a diversified 60/40 allocation. Maybe balance is a bad word these days but the fact is, into my 7th year of ER, following a standard (actually 3.8% WD rate) and into the greatest stock/housing decline after the Great Depression, the pile is still bigger than when I retired. So exactly, what is the problem with picking an asset allocation you can live with and living with it?

[unclemick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman I dunno, I ER'd December 2002 following the dumb and simpleton approach of a diversified 60/40 allocation. Maybe balance is a bad word these days but the fact is, into my 7th year of ER, following a standard (actually 3.8% WD rate) and into the greatest stock/housing decline after the Great Depression, the pile is still bigger than when I retired. So exactly, what is the problem with picking an asset allocation you can live with and living with it?

Pssst - what's your portfolio cut - SEC yield wise? Eh?



heh heh heh - and yes that's a Norwegian widow joke. And lest we forget:

pssst Wellesley = 5.69% SEC yield as of 3/13/09. Agile, mobile and hostile, more than one way to skin a cat, yadda, yadda. Balance and defense is good.

[ejman]

Well, I probably haven't done as well as Wellesley. From my ER date (1/1/03) according to Quicken my rate of return is 4% thru yesterday. How accurate is Quicken? Dunno

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.

I thought maybe OAP had dropped by for a visit...