Dave Ramsey rips the 4% rule again today.

In light of recent experience, I've been wondering whether we ought also to be talking about the SOIR (sequence of inflation risk) as well as SORR. It seems to me that a couple years of high inflation early in retirement, even if it subsequently abates, will have the same negative consequences as a couple of years of low returns during that same period.

Bengen, Trinity, et al failed at 4% in the late 1960s cohort due to inflation. Those studies use inflation-adjusted withdrawals against actual returns. It is already in there and not a separate issue. But your point is important because I think a lot of people think SORR is just nominal investment returns and they don't consider the inflation component.
 
Bengen, Trinity, et al failed at 4% in the late 1960s cohort due to inflation. Those studies use inflation-adjusted withdrawals against actual returns. It is already in there and not a separate issue. But your point is important because I think a lot of people think SORR is just nominal investment returns and they don't consider the inflation component.

Bengen bumped his SAFEMAX after rerunning with some small cap exposure and he had slightly better results than Trinity due to using Treasuries instead of corporates.

Wonder if anyone has attempted a similar study swapping TIPS in for the FI? Wonder if the 1966 retiree would have made it holding a 10 year TIPS ladder.
 
In light of recent experience, I've been wondering whether we ought also to be talking about the SOIR (sequence of inflation risk) as well as SORR. It seems to me that a couple years of high inflation early in retirement, even if it subsequently abates, will have the same negative consequences as a couple of years of low returns during that same period.

SORIR? (sequence of returns and inflation risk)

USGrant1962 is right: inflation-adjusted withdrawals were used and are part of SORR. I'm thinking that inflation has been mild for long enough that it's generally under-appreciated (or was, until mid-2021 or so) as a component of SORR. Thus, SORIR.
 
Bengen, Trinity, et al failed at 4% in the late 1960s cohort due to inflation. Those studies use inflation-adjusted withdrawals against actual returns. It is already in there and not a separate issue. But your point is important because I think a lot of people think SORR is just nominal investment returns and they don't consider the inflation component.

I agree on Bengen and the Trinity study. If I recall correctly, the worst year to retire was 1966. I guess my main point is that we talk a lot about down markets right after retirement but not so much about high inflation right after retirement. It seems to me that the worst time recently to retire was the start of 2022, when we entered a period of stagflation (high inflation and low market returns) for a good two years. SPX closed at 4677 on 1/2/22 and at 4742 on 1/2/24, a rise of only 1.4% over two years, while the CPI climbed from 278.802 to 306.746, a rise of 10% over the same period. So, two years in and you're already 8.6% in the hole.
 
Has DR always believed in the 8% rule?

I haven't listened to him since the 90's, but I don't remember him talking crazy like that.

He also believes in managed funds instead of index funds a paying Financial Advisors. He has a lot of moronic advice.

Watch this fun video of DR. Rude caller bluntly corrects DR's moronic advice ;)
 
He also believes in managed funds instead of index funds a paying Financial Advisors. He has a lot of moronic advice.

Watch this fun video of DR. Rude caller bluntly corrects DR's moronic advice ;)

I don't suppose he's ever actually told anybody exactly what those managed funds are he's invested in over the years that have beat the index:confused: I guess I'd have to go through one of his advisors to find our the magic funds.
 
I don't suppose he's ever actually told anybody exactly what those managed funds are he's invested in over the years that have beat the index:confused: I guess I'd have to go through one of his advisors to find our the magic funds.

Yes, they will give you that knowledge for 1% fee and then stir you towards managed funds with huge upfront fees and a 1%+ annual fee, because DR had never seen people that make millions with Index Funds.

Then you can retire and draw 8% plus pay those fees. Did he mean reatire at 75?
 
By the time late 2021 rolled around, I was considering retiring around April of 2022 if the market held up, on my 52nd birthday. In the overall scheme of things, I don't think it's going to matter that much what time of the year I retire, but it's always been my fantasy to do it around my birthday. That's also just far enough into the year that I'd be able to max out my Roth for the year, as well as sock away a bit in the 401k. We usually get a bonus in February/March, and raises normally kick in around late March, so if I retired in April, I'd get the bonus, and my leave would get paid out at the higher, post-raise rate.

But lately, the bonus and increased amount on the leave payout isn't much of an incentive. For years now, the bonuses have been around $850-1000. And the increase on the leave payout might be at best, $500. So it's really not worth it to stick around, just for that.

In raw dollars, I was down about $531K in 2022, up about $471k in 2023, so overall my loss was about $60K. And I'm up about $50K so far this year, so I'm really only down about $10K. But, throw inflation into the mix, and I'm still at a pretty good loss. My asset value is up substantially, but only thanks to additional investments.

So, retiring at the start of 2022 would have been pretty scary, especially by the time it bottomed out around late Sept/Oct. But I think 2023, and what little we've had of 2024, would have put my mind at ease somewhat. Now, if 2023 had been another bad year, that would've been a different story.

During the time I've been investing, I think retiring around the end of 1999/beginning of 2000 would have been about the worst time. With my own performance, I was down about 5% in 2000, and 20+% in 2001 and again in 2002. It would have mostly recovered as the 2000s wore on, but then 2008 would have made a mess of it. I was down about 40% that year. Assuming a 4% withdrawal rate, and actual inflation, I estimate I would have run out of money in 2022.

But then, who knows? If I was actually retired, I probably wouldn't have been invested so aggressively. And, at some point, Social Security would have kicked in, so that 4% might have still lasted 30 years.

At 3%, I'd still be okay. However, if I had started with $1M on 12/31/1999, I estimate I'd be down to around $893K on 12/31/2023. The 2024 withdrawal would be around $56K, which is around 6.3%. But, at this point it would only have to last another 6 years, assuming a 30 year retirement. And again, SS would have come into play, at some point.

For simplicity's sake, my spreadsheet also assumes yanking out the whole 3, or 4 percent, on the first day of the new year. Realistically I probably wouldn't have done that. Maybe I would have during a good year, but during the lean times, I would have been pulling out what I needed at the moment, and letting the rest of it take its chances.

I could see 1966 being a really bad year to retire. I think the market pretty much peaked around then, and got a bit shaky. And while there were some good years in the 1970s, there was also that '74-75 turmoil, and the whole 1979-82 period was a mess. And I think there was a mild recession around 1970 or so? So, if you had anything left by 1982, it wasn't much, and your spending probably outpaced growth by a wide margin, so you didn't get to enjoy the later part of the 80s boom.
 
Last edited:
I don't suppose he's ever actually told anybody exactly what those managed funds are he's invested in over the years that have beat the index:confused: I guess I'd have to go through one of his advisors to find our the magic funds.

I am really sirprised that call got through. What jumped out to me is his stat crediting 401k savings helping so many to become millionaires but 401k plans don’t offer the magical managed funds that consistently beat the index. He is contradicting himself. I think DR should really just stick to helping folks get out of debt.
 
This is the guy who tells you to pay cash for your house...you can't save fast enough to pay for a down payment let alone the whole darn house. Where does he live? LaLa land.

He went broke. bankrupt. na da...left. I will never take financial advice from anyone who declared bankruptcy.

Still some people listen to him like he's a god.

I wouldn't let him manage my dog's inheritance. My dog would have to wait to pay cash for a dog house..He only has 7 years..
 
With regards to paying cash for a house, it sounds like even Dave Ramsey isn't "My way or the highway" about it. Searching around, I found this blurb...

“I don’t borrow money, but I don’t yell at people for taking out a 15-year fixed mortgage where the payment is no more than 1/4 of your take-home pay,” said Ramsey during an episode of The Ramsey Show. “Philosophically, I don’t borrow money, so it’s not an option for me.”

FWIW, my first home, a condo, was $84,000 back in 1994. I was 24 years old. I put 5% down. I don't know how long it would have taken me to save up $84,000. If I continued to live at my Grandmom's, and put some effort at it, maybe somewhat quickly. But if I had to move out and pay rent, it wouldn't have been feasible.

So, perhaps it's feasible to think that in 10 years, I could have saved up $84K? Well, 10 years after I bought the condo, I sold it for $185K, so that wouldn't have cut it. For comparison, around the time my condo sold, I had about $130K saved/invested, so I would still have come up short.

It sold again in 2007, for $245K. By then, I think I had about $400K saved/invested, so I could have paid cash. However, a substantial chunk of what I had amassed, was thanks to the sale of that condo, so if I did that, I'd have a free-and-clear home, but not much saved up otherwise.

Now it sold again, during a market low, in 2017 for only $190K. I could have paid cash for it easily by then. In 2022 it went for $278K, and Redfin now thinks it's worth around $313K.

Sometimes I do wish I had stayed at home a bit longer, and saved up a larger down payment. But no way in hell would I have wanted to live with my grandmother until I could afford to pay cash for it!
 
This is the guy who tells you to pay cash for your house...you can't save fast enough to pay for a down payment let alone the whole darn house. Where does he live? LaLa land.

He went broke. bankrupt. na da...left. I will never take financial advice from anyone who declared bankruptcy.

Still some people listen to him like he's a god.

I wouldn't let him manage my dog's inheritance. My dog would have to wait to pay cash for a dog house..He only has 7 years..


Agree with you.... and I have a low interest rate loan so I do not want to pay it off..


I found it funny meeting a friend of my wife whose husband was a 'financial advisor' (really insurance salesman) but could not handle his own money... he always had financial problems... which lead to them getting divorced after a few years of marriage...
 
I think DR is wrong on suggesting 8% as a planned withdrawal rate

I do think DR helps many people improve their overall financial condition, especially those in a negative net worth situation.
Pushing actively managed funds with also a 1% AUM fee is where his position is weakest.

Rather than disparage DR, I’ve always tried to glean what I can.
 
I think he just looks for talking points to encourage followers/listeners like any entertainer. Personally, I think he has become a Charleton. He may have offered some encouraging ideas that for most of us are obvious in his early days. Now he is looking for new material, even if it is unqualified.
 
I never had a job where a 401k was available. My n of one says it doesn't, matter, just save and invest. Oh, and managed funds, they don't matter either, just save and invest.
 
I think DR is wrong on suggesting 8% as a planned withdrawal rate

I do think DR helps many people improve their overall financial condition, especially those in a negative net worth situation.
Pushing actively managed funds with also a 1% AUM fee is where his position is weakest.

Rather than disparage DR, I’ve always tried to glean what I can.
There becomes a point where one loses credibility. Not only is 8% stupid for most situations for those that disagree with him he calls them names, and then goes on political rants. I would never recommend him to anybody for anything at this point.
 
I never had a job where a 401k was available. My n of one says it doesn't, matter, just save and invest. Oh, and managed funds, they don't matter either, just save and invest.


This is the truth, the light, and the way. Sure it's nice to have the untaxed compounding of a 401K or an IRA, but the DNA of wealth building is ---
--- Just-save-your-money!--- And almost any boring not-too-cute for its own good investment scheme will do over time. Sure, index funds are preferable due to the lower "taxable spew rate" of managed funds but most normal, vanilla, large cap funds are shadow index funds anyway.

I haven't done any look-backs but I suspect you could retire with at least, sufficient funds even if all you put your money into was US saving bonds.
 
This is the truth, the light, and the way. Sure it's nice to have the untaxed compounding of a 401K or an IRA, but the DNA of wealth building is ---
--- Just-save-your-money!--- And almost any boring not-too-cute for its own good investment scheme will do over time. Sure, index funds are preferable due to the lower "taxable spew rate" of managed funds but most normal, vanilla, large cap funds are shadow index funds anyway.

I haven't done any look-backs but I suspect you could retire with at least, sufficient funds even if all you put your money into was US saving bonds.


I did a poor job of writing that, what I meant is you can get there even without using managed funds. Probably better.
 
He's excellent at motivating to get people out of debt and change their money habits. I think if you need that it's good to follow him.

I hadn't known about the 8% rule that's crazy talk. But no more crazy than paying cash for a house. But he does lessen his stance to 15 year fixed. That is also crazy in HCOLA but at least he gives an option.
 
And in a vacuum he would be correct. But as others have pointed out, he does not have SORR included in his calculation, and you don't know from one year to the next what the market will do. If enough of someones nest egg is not protected from a down market so that you can draw off that, then they are taking the chance that drawing money from investments during an extended down market will destroy the goose that is laying the golden eggs.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom