Won the Game/Moving the Goalposts?

[Mdlerth]

Well, the working is not part of the question. it is an independent variable. The question here is asset allocation.

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I was not commenting on whether you should stay or go. I understand that your continuing to work is not part of the question. It is, however, an inseparable part of the answer.

The reason it is worth mentioning is that by continuing to earn you can build a larger portfolio than your current "High" target.

As others have pointed out, the AA is pretty much unrelated to the %WR a retirement portfolio will likely support over its expected lifetime. Whether it's 30/70 or 50/50 or 70/30 makes little difference. (I've learned that on this forum!)

But your question wasn't limited to asset allocation. You also asked about "moving the goalposts." The answer is "The action that moves the goalposts is changing the amount in the portfolio, not its AA. If you are adding to it (via staying employed), then already you are moving the goalposts."

 

[DawgMan]

I will throw my hat into the ring as I have had some similar posts recently. "Won the game" seems to be mean different things for different people on this site. Taking into account risk tolerance, age/projected life span, required SWR relative to AA, can all spit out different values. Like you, I have "won the game" based on my own criteria, but decided regardless of hitting my "number", I would work until I shipped off kid #4 (2 yrs from now) before I consider the RE part of FIRE. If the SHTF over the next 2 yrs I may change my MO, who knows. Otherwise, I will pad the nest since my job has many more pros than cons. OTOH, if I worked in a $hit hole, I might be willing to go sooner vs. later. We can analysis paralysis the "won the game" math forever. If we have an AA that is 100% cash and can fund our expected life time including inflation... have we won the game? What if, what if..... From the experience of many on this site, I am molding my personal financial formula that works for me. It's kinda like making your own personal cocktail... a little of this, a little of that.

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

I think it depends on what the underlying retirement goals are that support the magic numbers and stretch targets.

For me, my main stretch goal relates to travel but extra layers of comfort in terms of lower AA and larger nest egg are important to me also.

 

[pj.mask]

I agree with DawgMan (even with all the acronyms) if work is enjoyable, there isn’t a big drive to change your life if you can see an upside to finances. To me, that’s the big decision here; a value proposition between work and money. Everyone will rank it differently based on their situation and values.

I think once I hit my number I will consider mobility (kids in school?) and if I enjoy my job vs increase in spending per year (about 1k/mo per additional year).

 

[Hermit]

I have read that regarding SWR. This has lead me to view that a 70%+ allocation to equities makes sense.

On taxation and FI, agree, both come into play. But as you move up in tax brackets, your efforts return less. The more you already have, the greater the disincentive.

Over the last few years of work I did a "glidepath" moving from around 80% to 60% which is where I am comfortable in retirement.

I do not think I in any way am misunderstanding the nature of taxation or how Roth conversions work.

But taxation reduces the incentive to work, and higher taxation reduces it more, which was my point.

I’m with you but there are many people on this site that profess they can’t.

 

[Luck_Club]

I'm another that fails to understand why people don't want to make more dough because they have to pay more taxes.

It is a good problem to have after all.

 

[Montecfo]

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I was not commenting on whether you should stay or go. I understand that your continuing to work is not part of the question. It is, however, an inseparable part of the answer.

The reason it is worth mentioning is that by continuing to earn you can build a larger portfolio than your current "High" target.

As others have pointed out, the AA is pretty much unrelated to the %WR a retirement portfolio will likely support over its expected lifetime. Whether it's 30/70 or 50/50 or 70/30 makes little difference. (I've learned that on this forum!)

But your question wasn't limited to asset allocation. You also asked about "moving the goalposts." The answer is "The action that moves the goalposts is changing the amount in the portfolio, not its AA. If you are adding to it (via staying employed), then already you are moving the goalposts."

I recognize continuing to work adds to the nest egg. But that fact is a "given" for me. It is not part of my question.

Here is why: my job is working for me at the moment. For many reasons, it has become low stress. I can take leave when I want and travel as much as we care to (DW is back at work and enjoying it, with summers off). Like everyone else, I am replaceable, but replacement would be relatively inconvenient for the company at this time. My main issue is balancing my goals while limiting the impact on my company and indulging my possibly misplaced sense of obligation to bring it across the finish line. I do not see reasons to make changes at the moment. But given I may wish to retire in days or weeks, my job is not a large financial consideration relative to asset levels.

"Moving the goalposts" was meant to refer to maintaining an aggressive AA, despite having "won the game". I understand it is somewhat ambiguous in the context of RE.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Danmar]

I recognize continuing to work adds to the nest egg. But that fact is a "given" for me. It is not part of my question.

I understand your point. but I think it is important how much you can “pad the nest egg” and whether the extra padding is of much value to you. In my case I started with a lot of padding (won the game many times over) which allowed me to keep an aggressive AA while also increasing my spending(ie the padding was very useable).

In the end it often comes down to answering the question. “ Should I take less risk because I don’t need to or should I take more risk because I can afford to?” Your personal risk appetite and spending utility will help you answer this.

 

[whatnot]

Well said Danmar!

 

[kcowan]

In the end it often comes down to answering the question. “ Should I take less risk because I don’t need to or should I take more risk because I can afford to?” Your personal risk appetite and spending utility will help you answer this.

That is the crux of the issue and there is no "one size fits all!"