Lord Abbett retirement insight

Nords said:
Dimson & Marsh, "Triumph of the Optimists".

If that book was more reader-friendly then we wouldn't be having these Chicken-Little conversations.

Ok here is the reader's digest version of it that they wrote - I bet Nords can post the choice bits of them (Though the title makes it seem as if they are saying the exact opposite thing)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=476981

Abstract:
We address the tendency of many investors to overestimate the rewards and underestimate the risks of investing in stocks over the long term - that is, investors' irrational optimism. In particular, we examine the widely held belief that stocks are a "safe" investment for the long run. The probability of experiencing a real loss on equities depends on the expected real return and standard deviation of stocks. Judgments about the future magnitude of these two parameters typically involve extrapolating from history. We use a global database of real equity returns from 16 countries during the 103-year period from 1900 through 2002 to confront the optimism of investors with the reality of history.

Since 1900, the worldwide real return on equities averaged close to 5 percent a year (before costs, fees, and taxes). This is appreciably lower than is frequently quoted from historical averages, a difference that arises because we use a longer time frame than other studies and adopt a global focus. Prior views on the long-run safety of equities have been overly influenced by the experience of the United States. Furthermore, the US evidence that, over the long haul, stocks have beaten inflation over all 20-year periods is based on relatively few nonoverlapping observations and is hence subject to large sampling error.

To counteract this dependency on projections of the US experience, we examine the histories of other countries. We find only three non-US equity markets (with a fourth on the borderline) that never experienced a shortfall in real returns over a 20-year period. The worst 20-year real returns of 11 countries were negative. Historically, in 6 of the 16 countries, investors would need to have waited more than 50 years to be assured of a positive return.

We also analyze the future shortfall risk of an equity portfolio. The base case for the projections is a worldwide historical volatility level of 20 percent and mean real return of 5 percent, and we also examine a lower return of 4 percent. The projected shortfall risk exceeds the historical risk of shortfall - partly because of the lower assumed real returns, and partly because, even though volatility was projected to be the same as in the past, the shortfall analysis focuses on the full range of possible future returns rather than a single historical outcome. By construction, historical returns converged on long-term realized performance, but the forward-looking analysis shows that there is always risk from investing in volatile securities.

Although the probable rewards from equity investment are attractive, stocks did not and cannot offer a guaranteed superior performance over the investment horizon of most investors. Furthermore, their prospective returns are lower than many investors project, whereas their risk is higher than many investors appreciate. Investors who assume that favorable equity returns can be relied on in the long term or that stocks are safe so long as they are held for 20 years are optimists. Their optimism is irrational.
 
lswswein said:
Ok here is the reader's digest version of it that they wrote - I bet Nords can post the choice bits of them (Though the title makes it seem as if they are saying the exact opposite thing)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=476981

I've read this book three times. I agree, many people seem to get no further than the title. The book is actually pessimistic, at least when compared to US experience of the past 60 years.

I am not sure who the perm-bears Nords referred to are - I don't see any real bears around here yet. That will have to wait until something happens.

Returns have been good; they may continue to be good. But IMO there is no denying that risk has increased. It has to have. Assets cost more, but are not proportionately more productive.

Ha
 
HaHa said:
I am not sure who the perm-bears Nords referred to are - I don't see any real bears around here yet...

Returns have been good; they may continue to be good. But IMO there is no denying that risk has increased. It has to have. Assets cost more, but are not proportionately more productive.

Ha

I think I've located one... ;)
 
HaHa said:
The book is actually pessimistic, at least when compared to US experience of the past 60 years.
At the end of it, though they conclude that:
- Only stocks reliably beat inflation over the long term (20 years), and
- The small-cap value premium does exist, admittedly accompanied by volatility.

The authors strike a very pessimistic tone, as rightfully they should when presenting their data and extrapolating it, but I see it as the same type of situation as griping about President Bush. The fact that we've made it through their history is a testament to the strength of the American economy, and also an endorsement of its future. If a Depression, two world wars, nuclear weapons, the Cold War, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Watergate, the oil crisis, Jimmy Carter, the "death of stocks", the Iran hostages, the first & second Gulf Wars, and the Bush administrations haven't brought this country to its knees... then what's it gonna take, hunh? "Bring it on, punk!" indeed.

HaHa said:
I am not sure who the perm-bears Nords referred to are - I don't see any real bears around here yet. That will have to wait until something happens.
Lord Abbett, Grantham, Gross, the goldbug journalists, and anyone who reads their analyses to conclude that they should lay in a store of MREs & bullion.

HaHa said:
Returns have been good; they may continue to be good. But IMO there is no denying that risk has increased. It has to have. Assets cost more, but are not proportionately more productive.
Actually I think that risk (the risk of long-term loss of capital, not single-stock risk or inflation risk or volatility risk) is lower than it's ever been in the past century. And to pay for that, future returns will also be lower. That's the real triumph.
 
REWahoo! said:
I think I've located one... ;)

Help, my hull has been holed and I'm taking on water! :D

Ha
 
Nords said:
future returns will also be lower.

Look, we found another permabear!

OK, so we start with a 4% SWR.

We knock off 2% because everybody knows future returns will be lower due to the skinny risk premia.

Then we knock off another 2% because everybody knows the CPI is rigged, and inflation is much higher.

And then the OMB tells us to expect GDP growth to lose a couple points due to the demographic bubble, so knock off 2% more.

4% - 2% - 2% - 2% = keep working!
 
wab said:
Look, we found another permabear!
Oh, please, stop putting words in my mouth. I'll be a permabear when profits as a percentage of GDP "revert to the mean".

My Quicken IRR last year was over 15%. It doesn't take much to achieve lower returns when you're starting from that level, and I think we're going to see returns hovering more around the Gordon equation.

But I'll cheer my spouse on in her working efforts!
 
It's OK, Nords. We're all permabear brothers here. That's the allure of the worst-historical-case planning tools that Dory gave us.

So, embrace your inner bear and hope for something better. :)
 
Withdrawal studies center around u.s. averages, 25 year withdrawals, and classic 60/40 portfolios, arriving at initial 4% + annual inflation withdrawals, using uncommonly high late life stock allocations to offset below average returns due to volatility. Adding lower dollar weighted returns, lower international returns, past higher investing cost and more conservative retirees removes the offsetting growth, leaving past near 0% net real returns.

Historically, your annual withdrawal rate is the same as your remaining life expectancy.
 
rmark said:
Historically, your annual withdrawal rate is the same as your remaining life expectancy.
You wanna put some numbers on that statement?

Because at the age of 46 with a remaining life expectancy of roughly 50 years I'm having trouble equating a two-digit number to my annual withdrawal rate.
 
i'd guess he means 1/(remaining expected years) ... so for a 50 yr expected life, 1/50, 1/49, 1/48, etc.
 
Cooley, Hubbard, Walz “Sustainable withdrawals from your retirement portfolio” paper
- home of the 4% rule
Dichev “What were stock investors actual historical returns?” paper
- dollar weighing lowers return
Dimson, Marsh, Staunton “Irrational optimism” paper
- international mostly lower return, more volatile, longer bad runs
Ervin “Shortfall risk, asset allocation, and over funding a retirement account” paper
- over fund in case retiring into down market
Frazzini “Dumb money: mutual fund flows and the cross-section of stock returns” paper
- badly timed changes by investors
Jorion “Long term risks of global stock markets” paper
- past higher u.s. capital gains
Jorion, Goetzmann “Global stock markets of the 20th century” paper
- mean reversion due to market survival
Taleb “Focus on the exceptions that prove the rules” article
- standard bell curve doesn’t really fit data

Complicated withdrawal rules are most likely spurious patterns due to small sample sizes
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
I'm pretty sure it was Nords who brought this up, but i'm too lazy to go look. I think his point was that while CPI has run at around 3% long term, in the last 25 years its been closer to averaging 5%.


:confused:

CPI-U in Dec. 1981 was 94, 137.9 in 1991, 158.6 in 1996, and 201.8 in 2006.

Therefore:

Average annual inflation rate for the last 25 years = 3.1%
Average annual inflation rate for the last 15 years = 2.6%
Average annual inflation rate for the last 10 years = 2.4%

I know inflation overestimation is a favorite pastime on these boards, but it does seem like things are moving in the right direction.
 
I'm 45, and I'm not particulary happy about less than 4% either, but withdrawal studies use specfic sets of data and rules for their results. They ignore what are somewhat subjective investor actions (bad timimg, investing late in a bull market), plus until "Triumph" came out, they were stuck with "easy to find" U.S. history. I've seen folks talk about 4% and then jump to high bond allocations as if it the caveats in the studies didn't matter.
 
Here in Canada it's a lot easier. Plan on two constants:

1) Free health care (such as it is).
2) If you run out of money your kids will put you on an ice flow. It's tradition.

Why worry, be happy!
 
kumquat said:
Here in Canada it's a lot easier. Plan on two constants:

1) Free health care (such as it is).
2) If you run out of money your kids will put you on an ice flow. It's tradition.

Why worry, be happy!

By Gar - I think we have a winner!
 
For what its worth a recent study in the UK found that, while official CPI was about 4% the inflation rate for older retired people was about 9%. Thats because they spend a higher proportion on energy, transport, services and food. Health insurance is optional because doctors and hospitals are free - if you don't mind the wait and the standards.

Those aged under 25, living at home and spending everything on ipods, downloads, mobile phones, chinese made T shirts, jeans and trainers and junk food had DEFLATION of about -2%.

Think young - spend less :D
 
The BLS did a thing called "CPI-E" or CPI for the elderly. If you google it, you'll find lots of white papers, early study work and some senior groups still pushing for it to be adopted.

The gist from the BLS white papers and released internal memorandums available seemed to say "Theres some merit to this, but we'd break the bank by giving seniors a higher social security adjustment, so...no!"

I found the piece parts of the CPI-E interesting in regards to ER's though...higher self-paid health care costs, travel, etc. Seemed to be a bit closer to an ER's life than an urban worker that rents and doesnt pay for health care.
 
kumquat said:
Here in Canada it's a lot easier. Plan on two constants:

1) Free health care (such as it is).
2) If you run out of money your kids will put you on an ice flow. It's tradition.

Why worry, be happy!

:D :D :D and with global warming, no ice flow fears! :D :D :D
 
pssst - Wellesley, 4.33% current yield - until Peppermint Snapps/snowbank time - AND put nothing newer than the Beach Boys on the Ipod.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh - sooo who thought the Norwegan widow was gone:confused: Not me.
 
...and guess which one won out...

But its interesting to see the delta between an urban worker who rents and doesnt pay for health care vs a retiree who owns their home and pays through the nose for health care, as measured using the same data and operating procedures.

IIRC, about .39% a year difference. Pretty significant over a decade or two.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom