audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
For my purposes, I just had to make sure there was a stash I could count on to last Y years and what withdrawal rate might be reasonable and survive with a high probability for 40+ years. So I set that amount aside and set the parameters. No matter what happens to the rest, I can reasonably expect the portfolio to survive over the long run as long as I don't exceed a prudent withdrawal rate.So you take money out of your portfolio, it is available for you to spend, but you no longer consider it 'part of your portfolio'? That really redefines what a success or failures is. Your 'portfolio' could fail, but you will still 'succeed', because you have a stash accumulated - from your 'portfolio' (that maybe would not have failed if you didn't take money out to accumulate it somewhere else)?-ERD50
There is no rule in the Trinity study et. al that says you must spend all funds withdrawn in a given year, or that you cannot have assets outside of your retirement portfolio you rely upon for withdrawals. The purpose of those studies and models is to tell you how that given a portfolio with an allocation W, and a number of years X what is the Y withdrawal rate you can use and have the portfolio survive with probability Z. That is all. The whole point of the models was to determine how much could be reasonably drawn from a given portfolio over the long term.
It says nothing about whether a person might survive using other assets, only how a portfolio with a certain allocation and rebalancing might survive for a certain number of years.
Last edited: