4.5% is the updated SWR according to Bill Bengen

sickman

Confused about dryer sheets
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
3
Location
Los Angeles
Reading an interesting Reddit AMA (ask me anything) thread from Mr. Bengen who first proposed the 4% SWR in 1994, according to his paper, "Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data".

What stuck out to me the most was his reply re: SWR:

The "4% rule" is actually the "4.5% rule"- I modified it some years ago on the basis of new research. The 4.5% is the percentage you could "safely" withdraw from a tax-advantaged portfolio (like an IRA, Roth IRA, or 401(k)) the first year of retirement, with the expectation you would live for 30 years in retirement. After the first year, you "throw away" the 4.5% rule and just increase the dollar amount of your withdrawals each year by the prior year's inflation rate. Example: $100,000 in an IRA at retirement. First year withdrawal $4,500. Inflation first year is 10%, so second-year withdrawal would be $4,950. Now, on to your specific question. I find that the state of the "economy" had little bearing on safe withdrawal rates. Two things count: if you encounter a major bear market early in retirement, and/or if you experience high inflation during retirement. Both factors drive the safe withdrawal rate down. My research is based on data about investments and inflation going back to 1926. I test the withdrawal rates for retirement dates beginning on the first day of each quarter, beginning with January 1, 1926. The average safe withdrawal rate for all those 200+ retirees is, believe it or not, 7%! However, if you experience a major bear market early in retirement, as in 1937 or 2000, that drops to 5.25%. Add in heavy inflation, as occurred in the 1970's, and it takes you down to 4.5%. So far, I have not seen any indication that the 4.5% rule will be violated. Both the 2000 and 2007 retirees, who experienced big bear markets early in retirement, appear to be doing OK with 4.5%. However, if we were to encounter a decade or more of high inflation, that might change things. In my opinion, inflation is the retiree's worst enemy. As your "time horizon" increases beyond 30 years, as you might expect, the safe withdrawal rate decreases. For example for 35 years, I calculated 4.3%; for 40 years, 4.2%; and for 45 years, 4.1%. I have a chart listing all these in a book I wrote in 2006, but I know Reddit frowns on self-promotion, so that is the last I will have to say about that. If you plan to live forever, 4% should do it.

If anyone is interesting in reading the AMA thread, link is here
 
Welcome to the forum.

4.5% :dance: I can't even get above 3%. If he is correct, our heirs are really going to be happy.

FN
 
He is probably right. Almost everyone on er.org is going to kick the bucket with their children fighting over several million dollars and who gets the old couch.
 
4.5%? Oh no!! Better ramp up my lifestyle. :D

Welcome to the Early Retirement forum, sickman. :)
 
So our 5% WR is not that high after all....

I think we will ramp up spending when SS comes online.:dance:
 
NOW they tell me!!
 
He is probably right. Almost everyone on er.org is going to kick the bucket with their children fighting over several million dollars and who gets the old couch.

That is why I favor some prudent ratcheting up of withdrawals/spending as one avoids the burly bear.

If someone retired 5 years ago with $1 million and a 4% WR and they now have $1.5 million then I see no reason why they cannot prudently ratchet up to 4% of $1.5 million.... it is just as prudent as someone with $1.5 million who is just now retiring starting with a 4% WR.

While I like the idea, my kids are less enthusaistic. (Just kidding).
 
Reading an interesting Reddit AMA (ask me anything) thread from Mr. Bengen who first proposed the 4% SWR in 1994, according to his paper, "Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data".

What stuck out to me the most was his reply re: SWR:

The "4% rule" is actually the "4.5% rule"- I modified it some years ago on the basis of new research. The 4.5% is the percentage you could "safely" withdraw from a tax-advantaged portfolio (like an IRA, Roth IRA, or 401(k)) the first year of retirement, with the expectation you would live for 30 years in retirement. After the first year, you "throw away" the 4.5% rule and just increase the dollar amount of your withdrawals each year by the prior year's inflation rate. Example: $100,000 in an IRA at retirement. First year withdrawal $4,500. Inflation first year is 10%, so second-year withdrawal would be $4,950. Now, on to your specific question. I find that the state of the "economy" had little bearing on safe withdrawal rates. Two things count: if you encounter a major bear market early in retirement, and/or if you experience high inflation during retirement. Both factors drive the safe withdrawal rate down. My research is based on data about investments and inflation going back to 1926. I test the withdrawal rates for retirement dates beginning on the first day of each quarter, beginning with January 1, 1926. The average safe withdrawal rate for all those 200+ retirees is, believe it or not, 7%! However, if you experience a major bear market early in retirement, as in 1937 or 2000, that drops to 5.25%. Add in heavy inflation, as occurred in the 1970's, and it takes you down to 4.5%. So far, I have not seen any indication that the 4.5% rule will be violated. Both the 2000 and 2007 retirees, who experienced big bear markets early in retirement, appear to be doing OK with 4.5%. However, if we were to encounter a decade or more of high inflation, that might change things. In my opinion, inflation is the retiree's worst enemy. As your "time horizon" increases beyond 30 years, as you might expect, the safe withdrawal rate decreases. For example for 35 years, I calculated 4.3%; for 40 years, 4.2%; and for 45 years, 4.1%. I have a chart listing all these in a book I wrote in 2006, but I know Reddit frowns on self-promotion, so that is the last I will have to say about that. If you plan to live forever, 4% should do it.

If anyone is interesting in reading the AMA thread, link is here

I find it difficult to believe a 75/25 portfolio begun in 2000 and adjusted for inflation is doing “Well”. I am assuming he meant 3-5 year treasuries when he said 75/25 stock intermediate term treasuries. Of course he also does not define what he means by stocks — other than to call them common stocks, but the S&P500/ ST bonds which was being floated in the years after this study as sure to last 30 years with a 4% withdrawal was down to 491 thousand at the end of 2015. A inflation adjusted 60%+ portfolio decline. I cannot imagine a 4.5% withdrawal having a chance of success there.
Raddr's Early Retirement and Financial Strategy Board • View topic - Hypothetical Y2K retiree update
 
4.5% was what my FIDO guy recommended and what was mentioned in the Random Walk Down Wallstreet book and what I based my first 4 years of withdrawals on. (though I didn't actually hit it.)
I like the 7% figure even better.
 
I find it difficult to believe a 75/25 portfolio begun in 2000 and adjusted for inflation is doing “Well”. I am assuming he meant 3-5 year treasuries when he said 75/25 stock intermediate term treasuries. Of course he also does not define what he means by stocks — other than to call them common stocks, but the S&P500/ ST bonds which was being floated in the years after this study as sure to last 30 years with a 4% withdrawal was down to 491 thousand at the end of 2015. A inflation adjusted 60%+ portfolio decline. I cannot imagine a 4.5% withdrawal having a chance of success there.
Raddr's Early Retirement and Financial Strategy Board • View topic - Hypothetical Y2K retiree update

Thanks for mentioning it. I have been biting my tongue all this time because this is such a buzzkill.
 
Originally Posted by Running_Man View Post
I find it difficult to believe a 75/25 portfolio begun in 2000 and adjusted for inflation is doing “Well”. I am assuming he meant 3-5 year treasuries when he said 75/25 stock intermediate term treasuries. Of course he also does not define what he means by stocks — other than to call them common stocks, but the S&P500/ ST bonds which was being floated in the years after this study as sure to last 30 years with a 4% withdrawal was down to 491 thousand at the end of 2015. A inflation adjusted 60%+ portfolio decline. I cannot imagine a 4.5% withdrawal having a chance of success there.
Raddr's Early Retirement and Financial Strategy Board • View topic - Hypothetical Y2K retiree update

Thanks for mentioning it. I have been biting my tongue all this time because this is such a buzzkill.

Happy to buy you two a beer the next time you come to the Panhandle as I p!$$ away my 4.5% WR ;)
 
I also found it interesting that he bases this on tax-advantaged portfolio:

The 4.5% is the percentage you could "safely" withdraw from a tax-advantaged portfolio (like an IRA, Roth IRA, or 401(k)) the first year of retirement, with the expectation you would live for 30 years in retirement. After the first year, you "throw away" the 4.5% rule and just increase the dollar amount of your withdrawals each year by the prior year's inflation rate.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have anything close to a majority of my retirement funds in a tax-advantaged account. Wish I did, but even with maxing out 401ks, etc. it wasn't close and I couldn't FIRE just with those amounts. So assuming everything is coming from tax-advantaged seems like a weird assumption. Seems like there would be a bigger tax hit if that was your source of income during retirement. Think the number would be different if it all came from a regular investment account? It seems so to me since you've already paid some taxes on the funds already during your w*rking life.
 
I also found it interesting that he bases this on tax-advantaged portfolio:



I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have anything close to a majority of my retirement funds in a tax-advantaged account. Wish I did, but even with maxing out 401ks, etc. it wasn't close and I couldn't FIRE just with those amounts. So assuming everything is coming from tax-advantaged seems like a weird assumption. Seems like there would be a bigger tax hit if that was your source of income during retirement. Think the number would be different if it all came from a regular investment account? It seems so to me since you've already paid some taxes on the funds already during your w*rking life.

Yes after taking a couple of years of RMD's, I am biting my tongue when I pay my income taxes.
 
I also found it interesting that he bases this on tax-advantaged portfolio:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have anything close to a majority of my retirement funds in a tax-advantaged account. Wish I did, but even with maxing out 401ks, etc. it wasn't close and I couldn't FIRE just with those amounts. So assuming everything is coming from tax-advantaged seems like a weird assumption. Seems like there would be a bigger tax hit if that was your source of income during retirement. Think the number would be different if it all came from a regular investment account? It seems so to me since you've already paid some taxes on the funds already during your w*rking life.


Same here. Hearing the ubiquitous invoking of "tax-advantaged retirement accounts" is like watching Star Trek. It seems like real people going about their business but none of it applies to the world I live in
 
Actually for someone with a low spending requirement, I think it is better to have more in tax advantaged accounts even if they are not Roth. The money is only taxed as you take it out. If you take it out at near poverty levels, you are really not going to pay much if any tax.

Example you have 1.2 million in a 401K and 500k in after tax account. A married couple pulling a taxable $20,000 out of the 401K and taking $15,000 in dividends and capital gains from the after tax account is going to pay $0 in federal tax.

I ran this as a $20,000 taxable 401K or IRA distribution, $7,000 in qualified dividends from the taxable account and $8,000 in long term capital gains from the taxable account. I used 2016 tax software.

$35,000 to live on, $0 tax due. :dance:

Probably can bump up a bit more on the figures and still be $0 tax.
 
OTOH, for the same amount of portfolio, you would wish the majority of your money were NOT in tax-advantaged accounts.
 
OTOH, for the same amount of portfolio, you would wish the majority of your money were NOT in tax-advantaged accounts.

Tax advantaged accounts include one often overlooked benefit which is near immunity from bankruptcy judgements.
 
I find it difficult to believe a 75/25 portfolio begun in 2000 and adjusted for inflation is doing “Well”. I am assuming he meant 3-5 year treasuries when he said 75/25 stock intermediate term treasuries. Of course he also does not define what he means by stocks — other than to call them common stocks, but the S&P500/ ST bonds which was being floated in the years after this study as sure to last 30 years with a 4% withdrawal was down to 491 thousand at the end of 2015. A inflation adjusted 60%+ portfolio decline. I cannot imagine a 4.5% withdrawal having a chance of success there.
Raddr's Early Retirement and Financial Strategy Board • View topic - Hypothetical Y2K retiree update

Let's assume he meant the Total Stock Market index.

The portfolio you linked to uses the S&P500 and a 6 month commercial paper for the equity/bond portion. Choose a different asset and you'll get a different result. Besides, the S&P500 returned almost 12% in 2016 and commercial paper rates rose during the year, so that portfolio is on its way up.

Interestingly, lower down on the same page that you referenced, a guy shows the performance of a VBINX based portfolio w/constant 3% inflation & it is doing pretty well considering what we've been through over the last 16 years.
 
I also found it interesting that he bases this on tax-advantaged portfolio:



I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have anything close to a majority of my retirement funds in a tax-advantaged account. Wish I did, but even with maxing out 401ks, etc. it wasn't close and I couldn't FIRE just with those amounts. So assuming everything is coming from tax-advantaged seems like a weird assumption. Seems like there would be a bigger tax hit if that was your source of income during retirement. Think the number would be different if it all came from a regular investment account? It seems so to me since you've already paid some taxes on the funds already during your w*rking life.

I am in the same boat as you and have more in taxable accounts than in retirement accounts. Taxes are paid from my annual withdrawals, so there is no "tax impact" on the portfolio.

In Bengen's paper, the retiree would have to pay income tax rates on the all withdrawals, so we should come out ahead since a portion of our withdrawals are from our capital (no tax), some portion is taxed at cap-gain rates and some at income tax rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom