The 4% rule .....quick question?

M

MrLoco

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
296
I know this has been discussed numerous times , but I just want to be sure. Let's assume I have $1 million in a taxable account invested in a 60/40 balanced fund.

I currently DO NOT reinvest the dividends as these are taxed either way....so dividends (assume at 2%) are directed to my bank account.

I then withdraw an additional 2% of the earnings every year to get me to the 4%. Put aside inflation issues for the moment to keep the math simple.
So I have withdrawn 4% ($40,000) from the portfolio.

If dividends are only 1.5% the following year, then I would withdraw 2.5% from earnings to reach 4.0%. Do I have this right?

Also, does the withdrawal need to be adjusted (downward) if a bear market occurs to account for sequence of return risk or is this risk already "baked" into the equation and a non-issue? Thanks.
 
MrLoco said:
....Do I have this right?

Also, does the withdrawal need to be adjusted (downward) if a bear market occurs to account for sequence of return risk or is this risk already "baked" into the equation and a non-issue? ...
Click to expand...

Yes, withdrawals would include all money coming from the account. Think of it this way, if you reinvested the 2.0% or 1.5% of dividends and then withdrew 4%, the net withdrawal would be 2.0% and 2.5% which is what you would be withdrawing as you proposed.

The withdrawal does NOT need to be adjusted if a bear market occurs... it is already baked into the 4%.... if you ran 100 simulations using a 4% withdrawal 95 would have money left over at the end of 30 years and in some cases a lot money. Below is a Firecalc simulation for a 4% WR for 30 years for a 60/40 portfolio starting with $1 million... note that there are few lines that end below zero and many les end up for more than the initial $1 million balance.

line-graph.php
 
Last edited:
You do have the withdrawal right - total withdrawal whether by selling or by harvesting dividends should total 4%. You pay taxes and investment expenses from this 4%.

The "traditional" 4% SWR that was presented by William Bergen does not consider market performance, but does consider inflation. You begin with 4% of your initial portfolio and adjust that by inflation every year irrespective of market performance.

Bergen's paper is here http://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf
If you are going to base your withdrawals on this method, I recommend reading it. It is dry, but not difficult to get through.

Some on this board use a different 4% SWR strategy. They take 4% of the portfolio value on a specific date (say Jan1) and live on that for the year. This amount obviously varies with portfolio performance and does not take inflation into account.

Bob Clyatt had a method based on the above that he called the 4/95 strategy. He detailed it in his excellent book Work Less, Live More.

There are all sorts of other variations too. Here are some of them
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Withdrawal_methods
 
Just for further clarification, the 4% is of the original portfolio value and does not change in subsequent years.

You mention dividends and earnings. Dividends are a portion of the earnings. The rest is principal.
 
You also need to remember that this is all forecast on past results. And is for a 30 year rolling period of time. Future results may vary.

If you are 60 and believe you will only live to 90 it is probably as good as any. If you are 30 however, this may be a too aggressive harvest.
 
To reiterate and rephrase, you take 4% in year one and then inflate that absolute dollar amount by the cost of living (I assume Bengen used the social security CPI) in following years. The percentage of the portfolio that comes out in those following years could be more or less than 4% of the then current portfolio depending on the market.
 
Last edited:
Unless this Bergen is a new guy in the area, his name is Bill Bengen.

Ha
 
OldShooter said:
The 4% wild-a$$ guess?
The 4% fable?
The spreadsheet-junkie's 4%?

+1

Search the internet for "Taleb's Turkey" or read this version: Nassim Taleb: “Let’s Not Be Turkeys” | Risk Management Monitor
Click to expand...


Taleb is right, but I think it is wrong to dismiss it as a wild-ass guess or a fable.

Following this model blindly, like many in the financial industry followed their models in past melt-downs, is the wrong thing to do. That's why I believe that anyone planning to use these methods needs to study (not just read) the original papers with all the caveats.

Black Swans can show up anywhere - in annuities, in pensions, in social security, in health, in civilizations etc. So, what's a person to do? I say, start with some rational method (historical performance in this case) and pay close attention. Be flexible and be conservative.
 
Rules were meant to be broken

In my opinion the 4% rule is no longer relevant. Hopefully it will be in the future. But, not now. Fuh git bout it.
 
FireBug said:
In my opinion the 4% rule is no longer relevant. Hopefully it will be in the future. But, not now. Fuh git bout it.
Click to expand...

If you may allow me to 'pick on you' a little (nothing personal), I think your statement encapsulates the problem.

The "4% whatever-we-want-to-call-it" is as relevant today as it ever was. It is a historical study. AFAIK, history still shows that a 4% inflation adjusted withdraw approach over 30 years has succeeded in 95% of the time periods in our historical database. So it is still true, so it is still relevant.


The "4% whatever-we-want-to-call-it" never was meant to, never can, never will, and has no mechanism whatsoever to predict the future. It was never relevant in that regard, so it is still irrelevant in that regard.

If you try to apply something improperly, the results are meaningless.

I think it is useful to understand how we would have fared in past cycles. The study is useful for that. Period.

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
If you may allow me to 'pick on you' a little (nothing personal), I think your statement encapsulates the problem.

The "4% whatever-we-want-to-call-it" is as relevant today as it ever was. It is a historical study. AFAIK, history still shows that a 4% inflation adjusted withdraw approach over 30 years has succeeded in 95% of the time periods in our historical database. So it is still true, so it is still relevant.


The "4% whatever-we-want-to-call-it" never was meant to, never can, never will, and has no mechanism whatsoever to predict the future. It was never relevant in that regard, so it is still irrelevant in that regard.

If you try to apply something improperly, the results are meaningless.

I think it is useful to understand how we would have fared in past cycles. The study is useful for that. Period.

-ERD50
Click to expand...

+1
However, I'm curious as to why the poster believes it's "no longer relevant". ( or should I not even go there?)
 
marko said:
+1
However, I'm curious as to why the poster believes it's "no longer relevant". ( or should I not even go there?)
Click to expand...

Well, reasonable people can make the case that the US markets won't see the kind of growth we have seen in the past. Could very well be true. But I recall hearing that in the 70's and 80's as well.

Remember when Japan was going to take over the world, and every kid better learn Japaneses? Then it changed to Chinese?

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
Well, reasonable people can make the case that the US markets won't see the kind of growth we have seen in the past. Could very well be true. But I recall hearing that in the 70's and 80's as well.

Remember when Japan was going to take over the world, and every kid better learn Japaneses? Then it changed to Chinese?

-ERD50
Click to expand...

Oh boy, time to segue into the international diversification holy war!

Quick. Question. :LOL:

MrLoco--you've received quick, good answers to your question. Now, excuse us as we go and beat the bushes. :)
 
ERD50 said:
Well, reasonable people can make the case that the US markets won't see the kind of growth we have seen in the past. Could very well be true. But I recall hearing that in the 70's and 80's as well.
-ERD50
Click to expand...

And reasonable people have been saying that for years, but then look at how long this bull is running? The answer of course is that past results are not a guarantee blah blah blah, but that we're all just guessing, and, at the time, the 4% was a decent guesstimate for a 30 year retirement.

Still might be, might not, and probably better to hedge down to 3.5 or 3 to sleep well, since sleeping well at night is one of the best ER benefits.
 
As others have indicated on this forum the 4% is a good rule of thumb for a 25-30 year plan with a AA=50/50. Since our ER plan was for 48 years (4 years ago) I approached it from how much my expenses need to be to provide the same lifestyle we enjoyed before we retired. That ended up being 2.6% WR. I increase this WR each year for inflation which I use 2.5% for normal expenses and 7.5% for healthcare. I felt for a 48 year plan that a starting WR of 2.6% was a safe rate based on running tools like FireCalc, Fid RIP and Flex Planner. Since SS benefits are so far away and with the uncertainty surrounding how they plan to fix it (kick the can) I did not include this income in our plan which give us a buffer when we do start collecting what ever amount they can payout when we reach FRA. Our current plan shows us hitting a WR of 4% at age 70 which is when we will start paying taxes on our RMD's from our retirement accounts. We will hit 5% WR at 80, 6% at 86, 7% at 89, 8% at 91.... I know our current WR is on the conservative side but we have only been ER'ed for 4 years and still finding our footing and confidence in our plan. We do not have heirs so we want to spend every last cent, but with 44 years left in the plan and the state of healthcare it is too risky (IMO) to spend to the max now.... Maybe I'll give ourselves a big raise when I reach 60 :LOL:.....
 
ERD50 said:
Well, reasonable people can make the case that the US markets won't see the kind of growth we have seen in the past. Could very well be true. But I recall hearing that in the 70's and 80's as well.

Remember when Japan was going to take over the world, and every kid better learn Japaneses? Then it changed to Chinese?

-ERD50
Click to expand...

for 4% inflation adjusted to hold mathematically all it takes is a 2% real return the first 15 years as an average .

remember , it is based on worst outcomes , not average or better .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ER Eddie
Question about Adjusting for Inflation with 4% Rule
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
hotwired
H
MichaelB
Morningstar declares 4% safe once again
4 5 6
Replies
138
Views
7K
TickTock
T
Gumby
Tax efficient asset allocation
Replies
19
Views
2K
OldShooter
OldShooter
T
Dividend reinvestment, I think I'm doing it wrong.
2 3
Replies
62
Views
7K
orbops
O
C
Make Whole Call Question
Replies
6
Views
564
Closet_Gamer
C

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom