Kitces: How the 4% rule has held up since 2000 & 2008

I struggle with this. I've read reducing equity exposure at retirement, even without using a rising glide path, helps to reduce sequence of returns impact. Were you at all concerned with SOR, and if not, why not? Also, can you explain your reasoning behind feeling 60/40 isn't too conservative for someone in retirement? I ask because I'm at 40/60 having just retired and whether I raise that ratio will depend a lot on what the PF looks like in say, 5 or 10 years.



Just interested in your thinking in order to perhaps educate mine.


Well if you base the decision on firecalc scenarios the answer is higher equity AA, something more like 75% equity does better. You have two different enemies, inflation that equities fight and loss of principal that bonds avoid. Why many go to more bonds in AA is they conclude they have already won the game, either due to size of portfolio or inflation adjusted pensions and don't see reason for the additional equity risk. So to your question do you have inflation adjusted pension or SS, or a small SWR need, then your decision seems fine.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Well if you base the decision on firecalc scenarios the answer is higher equity AA, something more like 75% equity does better.

Actually, FIRECalc says there isn't much improvement once you get to an equity allocation of 40%:
 

Attachments

  • Equity % success rates.JPG
    Equity % success rates.JPG
    65.2 KB · Views: 46
I struggle with this. I've read reducing equity exposure at retirement, even without using a rising glide path, helps to reduce sequence of returns impact. Were you at all concerned with SOR, and if not, why not? Also, can you explain your reasoning behind feeling 60/40 isn't too conservative for someone in retirement? I ask because I'm at 40/60 having just retired and whether I raise that ratio will depend a lot on what the PF looks like in say, 5 or 10 years.

Just interested in your thinking in order to perhaps educate mine.

I retired in 1999 - we know what the market looked like then.

I would never have been comfortable with 75% equities, especially in 1999. In looking at the studies, 60% equities had as good a survivability yet with considerably less volatility. 75% equities is sometimes recommended, as the terminal amount is likely to be higher, but I was more interested in dampening the roller coaster ride there. At the same time I knew that long term inflation was the bigger threat for an expected lengthy retirement, so I didn't want to go too low in equities at the beginning.

Yes, I was concerned with sequence of returns, but 40% fixed income seemed like a pretty good hedge. Whereas 25% not so much.

I doubt I'll go below 50% equities until I reach my 70s.

I'm confused - you are at 40% equities but asking me why I don't think 60% is too conservative for an early retiree?
 
Actually, FIRECalc says there isn't much improvement once you get to an equity allocation of 40%:

While that is true at 30 years at 40 years ******** shows an increase from 75% at 60/40 to 82% at 75/25, and Firecalc has similar numbers. I don't think 30 years is long enough for somebody retiring before 55.

How do you include a Firecalc result in a post? I know I've done before but everything wasn't working.
 
...

I'm confused - you are at 40% equities but asking me why I don't think 60% is too conservative for an early retiree?

I meant that I've wondered myself if my 40% equities allocation wasn't too conservative (although I have seen the chart and recommendations that between 40/60% and something like 60/40% on the high end is the AA sweet spot). So I wanted to understand why you thought your higher 60% equity allocation wasn't too conservative.

I will probably stay at 40/60 for at least the next 5 years as it represents my SWAN PF. If the equity portion dropped by 50% in a crash, I could live with that until they recovered. It reduces anxiety around market activity now that I'm retired.

I've also found that I inadvertently greatly reduced anxiety around having just retired by "accidentally" working one more year: I retired 5 months later than planned at the request of my boss, then used $ earmarked for something else no longer needed to fund the rest of the year. I'm keenly aware of the SWAN factor when it comes to finances, so acting in the manner I have has worked for me (not to say I won't increase equity allocation in the future based on PF performance).
 
Last edited:
I meant that I've wondered myself if my 40% equities allocation wasn't too conservative (although I have seen the chart and recommendations that between 40/60% and something like 60/40% on the high end is the AA sweet spot). So I wanted to understand why you thought your higher 60% equity allocation wasn't too conservative.

I will probably stay at 40/60 for at least the next 5 years as it represents my SWAN PF. If the equity portion dropped by 50% in a crash, I could live with that until they recovered. It reduces anxiety around market activity now that I'm retired.

I've also found that I inadvertently greatly reduced anxiety around having just retired by "accidentally" working one more year: I retired 5 months later than planned at the request of my boss, then used $ earmarked for something else no longer needed to fund the rest of the year. I'm keenly aware of the SWAN factor when it comes to finances, so acting in the manner I have has worked for me (not to say I won't increase equity allocation in the future based on PF performance).

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with early retirement with only 40% equities. I think the sweet spot really starts closer 45%, and that's for a 30 year retirement so is more appropriate for someone retiring at 65.

But if you start at 40% and allow your equity allocation to gradually rise, spending more down from your fixed income - that should be OK.
 
Not only do three of the four "failures" occur beyond 30 years, the one failure within thirty years (#4 above, ending in 2002), last 29 years! In truth, this data tends to encourage optimism, not concern, about the 4% withdrawal rate. Unless the retiree concerned retired at age 32, SS would be available as a backup in the above scenario.
Separately, Firecalc always seems to provide more favorable numbers than ********. Wanting to err on the side of caution, I tend to view the data as more reliable if it comes from the more pessimistic, rather than the more optimistic calculator.

The 1973 failure cycle also starts showing signs of stress so quickly, that I'd like to think most people would take precautions to keep it from failing. Because of inflation, and the turbulent economy, what started off as a 4% withdrawal rate in 1973 is suddenly 10.2% by 1979!

I used the figures of $40K per year, and $1M invested, to start off. By 1979, inflation has brought that $40K up to $73,051, while the $1M had been eroded to $713,921.

And, that's not just a one-year aberration. It goes to 11.2% for 1980, and 13.3% for 1982. By 1987, it's back down to 11.7%. By this time, the withdrawal amount is $108639, and the remaining balance is at $931,973. Almost back to $1M, but in much-less valuable 1987 dollars.

From there, the withdrawal rate goes up quickly. For 1994 it comes to 22.3%, and by the end of 2001 there's only ~$32K left. The 2002 withdrawal is ~$170K, so that puts an end to it really quickly.

If this had been me in the above scenario, I would hope I would have had the foresight to cut back on spending fairly early on, take a part time job, or both! Still, even in this scenario, when you consider the withdrawal rate went above 10% way back in 1979, yet it held on through the end of 2001, it looks to me like the 4% SWR still put up a valiant fight.
 
FWIW - retiring next year at 50, with a 60/40 portfolio and 3% WR. I don't anticipate getting more conservative than that, and may opt to follow rising equity percentage if things look good after a few years.
 
Thank you OP.
I've been getting tired of reading the Pfau and Schiller PE10 "This time it's different" SWR=2.x% postings.
It's to late, I already retired! I'm not going back to do another 20 years to get to a 2% WR.
So despite my super high WR, with SS coming on line in 14 years I'm feeling better after reading the linked article.
 
Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with early retirement with only 40% equities. I think the sweet spot really starts closer 45%, and that's for a 30 year retirement so is more appropriate for someone retiring at 65.

But if you start at 40% and allow your equity allocation to gradually rise, spending more down from your fixed income - that should be OK.

Confession: it's not really early retirement in that technically including the OMY I retired at 61. The 40% still works by all calculations (although it probably makes my retirement more expensive, a compromise I'm willing to make for personal peace of mind).

Admittedly, however, increasing to 45-50% in 5 years depending on market is a good idea, so I'm definitely strongly considering it. Thanks for your thoughts!
 
Thank you OP.
I've been getting tired of reading the Pfau and Schiller PE10 "This time it's different" SWR=2.x% postings.
It's to late, I already retired! I'm not going back to do another 20 years to get to a 2% WR.
So despite my super high WR, with SS coming on line in 14 years I'm feeling better after reading the linked article.

Emphasis added

+1 and well said.
 
Thank you OP.
I've been getting tired of reading the Pfau and Schiller PE10 "This time it's different" SWR=2.x% postings.
It's to late, I already retired! I'm not going back to do another 20 years to get to a 2% WR.
So despite my super high WR, with SS coming on line in 14 years I'm feeling better after reading the linked article.

It's good to feel better about how an unknown future will treat you! But the fact is, it is an unknown, the past may not predict the future and only living through the times will reveal the actual outcome.

Pfau/Schiller may be correct. Or Kitice's more optimistic outlook may be correct. Or the future may be something entirely different from any of our expectations. That's the way life is.

I'm glad you're feeling better! But stay flexible, especially about alternatives to supporting yourself if historical based projections for financial holdings take an expected path.
 
Last edited:
Pfau is selling something... I read his stuff with interest, but take it with a grain of salt.

Everybody is selling something. There are no guru's with the "one" correct answer. Take all authors with a grain of salt.

The exception to the above might be gov't reports on historical and current performance of economic factors. Or articles based on those reports where the reader has a firm grip on the data being used and the statistical tools being used to analyze it.

And even gov't reports which seem to be strictly quantitative statements of the facts can be loaded with bias meant to influence the public/voters. Inflation calculation methodologies come to mind.........

Guru-seekers, beware!
 
Last edited:
Reconcile with Firecalc/******** ?

Michael Kitces has written another balanced article.

He observes that the current state of 2000 and 2008 retirees portfolios is comparable to that of 1929, 1937 and 1966 retirees. Better in some respects.

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-has...bble-and-the-2008-financial-crisis/#more-7856

Be sure to read the last section on historical perspective.

This one observation struck me and I'll incorporate this calculation in my annual analysis of our situation

I ran a scenario running both Firecalc and ******** with a $1 million portfolio, 64/35 stocks/bonds, and a $40K withdrawal over 30 years.
This generates success rates of 96% with Firecalc and 91% with ********.

This does not appear to square with what Mr. Kitces states, though I have not run through his numbers in detail.

Would you trust Kitces's numbers to set your withdrawal rate even if ******** suggests that there's a 9% chance of running out of money in the target time frame?
 
Pfau is selling something... I read his stuff with interest, but take it with a grain of salt.


He now works for an insurance co. He could be accused of selling SPIAs formerly, not a bad thing to many people. The thing is : he shows his work, he shows his assumptions. You can argue with those assumptions, but taking his work with a grain of salt just means that ur taking his assumptions I.e, present low bond rates predicting future low bond rates, and lower stock returns in the future, with a grain of salt.

As an aside GMO and Jeremy Grantham just came out with their latest 7 yr forecast, and for the first time since 1999 it's a negative forecast. Supposedly these forecast have been quite accurate in the past.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
We aren't big risk takers so we're using matching strategies for the money we need for our basic retirement lifestyle:

Matching strategy - Bogleheads

Even a zero real return can provide a worry free 2.5% SWR over a 40 year retirement.

Our MO for increased financial security in retirement has been to look for ways to reduce unnecessary / wasteful recurring expenses and increase our passive business / hobby income since we can control those, but we cannot control the stock market or interest rates.
 
Last edited:
Would you trust Kitces's numbers to set your withdrawal rate even if ******** suggests that there's a 9% chance of running out of money in the target time frame?

You didn't ask me per se, but yes. Why? Because this isn't an unchangable path. You can drive failure modes to zero by modifying any number of things including spending, withdrawals, asset allocations, etc., in the already unlikely event that it becomes necessary. That's just me, and I don't plan to 100% by FIRECalc or anything else anyway... for now!
 
...but taking his work with a grain of salt just means that ur taking his assumptions I.e, present low bond rates predicting future low bond rates, and lower stock returns in the future, with a grain of salt.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly right. He could be right. I don't plan using a historical return; I plan using a more conservative number, so I'm accounting for the possibility of lower stock returns in the future already. Why do I also need to reduce my WR to 2.5% if my numbers show a 4% will work even at the lower stock return? If you're into doubling up on being conservative (along with all the other already conservative assumptions most of us make in retirement planning), then that's fine. At some point, enough is enough, and predictions of 2.5% SWR in the future are akin to Yahoo! Finance headlines that read, "NO ONE WILL EVER RETIRE EVER!" and the article telling you you need to replace 90% of your salary in perpetuity to ever fully retire.

The 4% model has worked during periods of low stock return when markets were overvalued. Overvaluation isn't expected (by any rational person) to last the next 30 or 40 years (lucky us if it does!), so I find that Pfau saying a 30 year WR should be based on lower future stock returns disingenuous. The likelihood that stock returns remain low forever and ever ignores history even though history shows that overvaluation leads to lower stock returns - the basis of their argument. As others have told us, these guys are pushing "this time it's different", but there's as much likelihood that it's not.
 
Last edited:
60/40 is not always 60/40

VBINX is 60% Wilshire 5000 Index (Greaney has a typo in the table itself saying S&P 500) and 40% Lehman Aggregate Bond Market Index.

Wellington (VWELX) is also 60/40 but is a manged fund. Odd for Vanguard, eh?

I decided to see how they compare over time. First, I compared them on PerfChart, which plots total return but stops at January 1999. The difference between the two was remarkable but did not cover the same range, so I built tables similar to John Greaney's from historical data from Yahoo Finance on the same basis. My VBINX values were a little different from year-to-year than his as I took the first day in January instead of the last day of December. Oh, well. The difference was still striking.

Having proven once again that I have no business picking individual stocks, I am gradually moving everything into VWELX. Old Dutch adage: We grow too soon old and too late smart.

(The attachments did not quite turn out as expected. If they are illegible, please advise and I will try again.)
 

Attachments

  • PerfChart VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    PerfChart VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    300.2 KB · Views: 59
  • tables VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    tables VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    380.8 KB · Views: 45
  • EXCEL chart VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    EXCEL chart VWELX vs VBINX.jpg
    331 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
You didn't ask me per se, but yes. Why? Because this isn't an unchangable path. You can drive failure modes to zero by modifying any number of things including spending, withdrawals, asset allocations, etc., in the already unlikely event that it becomes necessary. That's just me, and I don't plan to 100% by FIRECalc or anything else anyway... for now!

Just sayin that you can never get to zero...

We could have a nuclear war...

We could have an asteroid crash into the US and destroy most the the country or world...

Heck, aliens could show up and want to use us as food... (I kinda put this really really low however)...


So, you might approach zero, but you can never ever get there....
 
...

Pfau/Schiller may be correct. Or Kitice's more optimistic outlook may be correct. Or the future may be something entirely different from any of our expectations. That's the way life is.

...

+1

Everybody is selling something. There are no guru's with the "one" correct answer. Take all authors with a grain of salt.

The exception to the above might be gov't reports on historical and current performance of economic factors. Or articles based on those reports where the reader has a firm grip on the data being used and the statistical tools being used to analyze it.

And even gov't reports which seem to be strictly quantitative statements of the facts can be loaded with bias meant to influence the public/voters. Inflation calculation methodologies come to mind.........

Guru-seekers, beware!

+1

...

If you're into doubling up on being conservative (along with all the other already conservative assumptions most of us make in retirement planning), then that's fine. At some point, enough is enough, and predictions of 2.5% SWR in the future are akin to Yahoo! Finance headlines that read, "NO ONE WILL EVER RETIRE EVER!" a+1nd the article telling you you need to replace 90% of your salary in perpetuity to ever fully retire.

The 4% model has worked during periods of low stock return when markets were overvalued. Overvaluation isn't expected (by any rational person) to last the next 30 or 40 years (lucky us if it does!), so I find that Pfau saying a 30 year WR should be based on lower future stock returns disingenuous. The likelihood that stock returns remain low forever and ever ignores history even though history shows that overvaluation leads to lower stock returns - the basis of their argument. As others have told us, these guys are pushing "this time it's different", but there's as much likelihood that it's not.

Emphasis added

+1
All very well said.
 
Yep, that's pretty much exactly right. He could be right. I don't plan using a historical return; I plan using a more conservative number, so I'm accounting for the possibility of lower stock returns in the future already. Why do I also need to reduce my WR to 2.5% if my numbers show a 4% will work even at the lower stock return? If you're into doubling up on being conservative (along with all the other already conservative assumptions most of us make in retirement planning), then that's fine. At some point, enough is enough, and predictions of 2.5% SWR in the future are akin to Yahoo! Finance headlines that read, "NO ONE WILL EVER RETIRE EVER!" and the article telling you you need to replace 90% of your salary in perpetuity to ever fully retire.

The 4% model has worked during periods of low stock return when markets were overvalued. Overvaluation isn't expected (by any rational person) to last the next 30 or 40 years (lucky us if it does!), so I find that Pfau saying a 30 year WR should be based on lower future stock returns disingenuous. The likelihood that stock returns remain low forever and ever ignores history even though history shows that overvaluation leads to lower stock returns - the basis of their argument. As others have told us, these guys are pushing "this time it's different", but there's as much likelihood that it's not.


You're right. Stock returns don't remain low forever, they normalize in bear markets. Then they revert thereafter to normal or high. If we had a 20% correction tomorrow, both Pfau and GMO would change their forecast to higher returns. So the returns are lower just for the period before the correction. If you retire before a severe bear, your returns will be low for what seems forever. If you retire after it ends, it may be high for what seems like forever. So they will only remain low till the next real bear.

But really, whether we admit it or not, this time IS different. Firecalc has never run a calculation with rates as low as this, and PEs as high. Never. May not make a difference to our retirement eventually, but this time really IS different.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
But really, whether we admit it or not, this time IS different. Firecalc has never run a calculation with rates as low as this, and PEs as high. Never. May not make a difference to our retirement eventually, but this time really IS different.


Every time is different. If it wasn't, we'd know exactly what to do and everyone would do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom