FIRE withdrawal strategies

[scrabbler1]

If you FIRE'd in the last 7-8 years, isn't there a good chance that the values of your portfolios are greater than when you retired?

Unless one is withdrawing a lot more than the nominal return from those years?

Regardless of if you're just withdrawing dividends or a percentage of the total portfolio at the end of the prior year?

Yes, my overall portfolio has nearly doubled since I ERed in late 2008. The decline in my bond fund's value is a general one in the last 4 years. It has risen in the last 12 months after a downward spike. The stock fund's rise enabled me to take some gains and buy some more relatively cheap shares of the bond fund.

 

[audreyh1]

So ... the folks who don't qualify as FI under the old definition (income > expenses by a healthy margin) have now embraced a new definition more to their liking? OK - whatever works. ��

Most of the discussion on this thread seems to be related to the income generated by highly liquid assets such as stocks & bonds. If I had to rely entirely on this type of income to support my 'lifestyle', things would be a tad tight. I hope I never have to go there. ��

What old definition? Is there a rule somewhere that says you're not FI unless you never dip into "principal"? That spending down your savings/investments over your lifetime is not allowed?

 

[DawgMan]

Question for the dividend portfolio folks, mainly those already FIRE'd...

How steady has your dividend income been?
How impacted has it been by dividend cuts? eg. Did you have to cut spend?
How positively has it been impacted by dividend growth? eg. Has your dividend income outpaced inflation?

Great questions!

This is where a 10 yr + retiree who subscribes to a dividend only portfolio can sel some T-shirts. Say I subscribe to a 2% SWR and I want to retire in 3 yrs, but am comfortable with a 60/40 AA total return portfolio I will rebalance every year, but I am also open to an all dividend portfolio. If one requires a higher balance to RE, then I may have to wait longer to RE? Assume tax implications are he same. Sell me on based on historical returns on dividend portfolio.

 

[pb4uski]

So ... the folks who don't qualify as FI under the old definition (income > expenses by a healthy margin) have now embraced a new definition more to their liking? OK - whatever works.

Most of the discussion on this thread seems to be related to the income generated by highly liquid assets such as stocks & bonds. If I had to rely entirely on this type of income to support my 'lifestyle', things would be a tad tight. I hope I never have to go there.

What old definition? Is there a rule somewhere that says you're not FI unless you never dip into "principal"? That spending down your savings/investments over your lifetime is not allowed?

+1 that was my reaction... I don't accept the definition to begin with. My "income" is interest, dividends and share appreciation... recognizing that the latter is more volatile then the former and in some periods might be negative but over long periods is almost always positive.

Until SS starts a portion of what we are living on is appreciation since interest and dividends are less than our spending.... that has always been part of the plan.