What I guess is *an* independent analysis of all of this

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

Post Reply
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

What I guess is *an* independent analysis of all of this

Post by th »

I never thought an ethereal subject could gain such legs. Thank you in advance for reading this very long missive as I usually wont spend the time required to read such a long document. Thank you also for your comments, suggestions and retorts.

To start off, I have absolutely no love or hate for any people, ideas or analyses with regards to investments or investment ideologies. I have my own opinions and plans, but I respect and listen to others and their ideas at least until I understand them.

I also understand that while some elements of planning, prediction and measurement are worthwhile and contributive to succeeding at any plan, that other elements such as social, psychological and random events can play just as large of a role. In that light, I think I've tried to not become a total disciple of any process or strategy in a manner that will be detrimental.

I ER'ed 3 years ago. I discovered these discussion boards about six months ago and have participated in several. I explored investing for about 10 years prior to ERing and participated in what was a "traditional" investment environment, then the go-go late 90's, and most recently a bear market. But I'm far from any kind of expert.

Off the top of my head, there are four large camps I can make out.

One is "give your money to 'experts', tell them your fears and expectations, and for a fee they'll execute what is probably one of a handful of cookie cutter approaches, and charge you 1-3% of your money. This is a good approach for someone that knows nothing, wants to know nothing, and understands that some, most or all of their potential returns will be consumed by the 'expert'. Know also that the expert can and possibly will lose some or all of your money and that only one expert money manager has successfully turned out market beating returns for a long time.

Two is to buy indexed funds, usually balanced ones of stocks and bonds, and for the racier, some foreign issues. Historically the average investor...in fact virtually all investors...fail to "beat the overall market". The rate of 'beating the market' is lower than statistical coincidence, meaning that flipping coins and monkeys throwing darts would be better. Further, indexes are cheap investment vehicles and dont require much more investment knowledge than someone in case #1 maintains and the cheapness means you get an edge on returns right off the bat. There is great temptation though, in getting in and out of these markets when they reach what appear to be high and low water marks. Historically there have been many ways to 'measure' these. To the best of my knowledge, none have been predictively successful over the long haul. Lots of data points out that the majority of market gains and losses are made in a very small number of days, with the implication that making your timing bets and grasping or avoiding those small number of days is hard, almost impossible, to do. Calculation products with hundreds of years of historic data allow one to determine the fate of an investment by these broad indexes, although which chunks of data, their start and stop periods, and a mind numbing range of background social, economic, psychological and emotional factors backdrop all of the rises and falls. It never happens the same way twice, and never for the same reasons. Predicting the weather is an easier science: no emotions, no social stimuli, no psychological effects, and fewer physical influences.

Third is the active management process. One learns a great deal about investing and investments. One then proceeds to buy "good" stocks and bonds at "good" times, and optionally sells them when they become "bad" stocks or at "bad" times. Similar to how an investment manager runs a mutual fund. Some buy and holders achieve good results. Most that trade heavily with substantial amounts of money fail. Only one guy on earth has a long term record of substantial success. Statistically there should be hundreds or thousands. See caveats on #2.

Lets call the currently debated strategy #4. I'm probably going to vastly oversimplify. A method to value stocks, PE/10, is employed to determine market value. One avoids stocks at a level over a high water mark, one buys them once a low water mark is breached. I guess one can argue with whether PE/10 is a good, or the best, method of measuring. One can also argue the high and low water marks. One can also argue whether historically gleaned high and low water marks are applicable to the future. In the absence of good equity values, one buys high interest or inflation protected securities, lowers their withdrawal to suit the real return of investment, and eats the capital to sustain the needed withdrawal through the term of retirement. Whether one buys indexes (easily measured) or individual stocks is debatable in what I think is an unwinnable manner. Whether one considers high yield "value" stocks as a reasonable asset class when the overall market is overvalued by PE/10 is also debatable.

Conclusion:

Some people simply cannot or will not learn and understand investing, so option #1 or #2 are their only destinations.

Some people simply cannot stop fiddling with things and are willing to learn investment science. Most that I know have realized that the 'fiddled' part of their portfolio performs worse than the "unmanaged" portion. Even the great Peter Lynch thrashed himself out of existence trying to "beat the market".

Its become clear to me that owning broad segments of the market in low cost indexes, over long periods of time, is a simple and effective strategy.

Whats continued to gnaw at me is the bargain shopping instinct in me that wants to avoid overpriced merchandise and buy discounts wherever possible. While perhaps not a good long term investment strategy, at least for the initial employment of cash into an investment distribution. That makes option #4 appealing and interesting. Further, is there a mechanism I can use to periodically move in and out of these indexes and preserve capital?

History says there isnt. It says that when it happens, its mostly luck, and continuing to push your luck causes the law of averages to catch up to you at some point. When I say that, I mean you cant predictively get out at 90% of the high point or 90% of the low point. That doesnt mean the measurement is worthless, simply whether the measurement can divine the nearly true bottom or top; while one can avoid real losses, one also avoids real gains. And wouldnt it suck if you bailed out and the next day a 3% gain registered?

Is PE/10 a highly reliable yardstick? I dont know. It looks perfectly ok for determining when stocks are high or low, but it cant predict how long they'll be high or low and/or if they'll go higher or lower. Had I gotten out of stocks when PE/10 said they were overpriced, I would have missed out on most of my portfolio appreciation and not been able to retire early.

Are the thresholds for high/sell and buy/low clear? Absolutely not and I doubt anything could change my mind about that.

Is buying a lot of tips/ibonds/high interest rate cd's a good idea? Sure, if your nest egg is big enough to live off the highly predictable returns along with any needed canibalization of your capital, and you're sure that with the medical improvements being made every day that you wont outlive your money, its a great bet.

Is buying high dividend stocks in a high priced equity environment a good idea? Value investing in broad clumps has historically been a better performer than growth or blended. Value investing in individual companies without exceptional knowledge and real time information is a very dangerous activity. Buyer beware.


So that was an interesting exercise, but it hasnt changed my strategy.

I dont believe in a "safe withdrawal rate". I watch my expenses, live the way I want to, dont waste anything, and take the money I need to do that. Thats my "withdrawal rate". I keep about a 10-15k cash buffer around and when it drops under 10k I take about 5k from my short term bond fund to puff it back up. Irregularly. When I need it. If something explodes, I have a 100k HELOC to draw from, and the wife has a 40k one on her house.

My IRA is full of volatile and high return equity instruments, mostly indexes. I wont touch it for 20 years. Emerging market, reit, small cap value, healthcare...when prices come down a little, some energy.

My taxable fund is largely in a conservative managed fund at vanguard that charges me index fund rates (.16% last year, .20 nominal). It invests in sound large cap value stocks and/or strong dividend producers at roughly 35%, and the remaining 65% in short to intermediate financial and corporate bonds. It has never had two losing years in a row, it has never had a double digit loss, and its 35 year annual return rate is roughly the same as the s&p 500. It is currently coughing up a ~4% dividend, and historically has paid in the 6-7% range on average. I chose this fund for high income, low volatility, and a rate of return on par with more volatile investments. I have about 10% of my total port split between japan and europe indexes. The remainder is in the short term corporate bond fund, and all the dividends/capital gains feed into that. I use this instead of a money market because it returns far more than a money market, has very low volatility, has rarely lost money and when it has the loss was more than made up for in the year prior or year following.

I can largely live on the dividend throw off of this strategy. While the rest, by history, will grow at a rate faster than inflation. My wife still works and loves her job, and we can live on her income alone very well. We've built a nice retirement account for her, she's contributing the max to a roth, and she has substantial pension fund as well. When she retires, currently planned for ~60 give or take a few years, we'll have my inflation grown taxable fund, my IRA, her roth and 403b, her pension, and hopefully both of our social security checks. Without social security the projected amount of our combined annual income in todays dollars, after taxes, is six figures.

A key to my comfort in this strategy has been the elimination of all debt, including mortgages. In the absence of radical moves like bankruptcy, debt is a "required, sure thing" payment of a rate that is almost always far higher than you can get in even moderate risk investments. I pay myself invisibly every month at a 6+% rate, sure thing, and the investment provides me with the side benefit of being able to live in it. Take THAT ibonds! ;) By removing most 'involuntary' monthly expenses, I can completely control my withdrawal rate during bad times, and I am not subject to external financial influences on a debt load.

If the equities market takes a large drop, I would consider shifting some of the funds in my taxable account to take a larger position in equities. I doubt I'll use PE/10 or any other single measure, but will look to a half dozen or so of them, and my gut feel. If EVERYONE is afraid of owning equities as a result of a crash or long sideways/downward spiral, I'll be buying.

As far as others and this proposed strategy. As mentioned in another thread, I think you get to ER or "richness" through one or two defining events that combine luck, being in the right place at the right time, and making a sharp decision. I certainly did, and I needed all three in equal measures. Its my feeling that running a conservative strategy like the #4 proposal during the accumulation stages could conceivably limit your "right place" opportunity, as well as the "luck" piece. So while it wouldnt kill you and you might sleep well, it might stop you short of seeing one of those bluebirds that 'sets you free'. Oh yeah, it also took a lot of long hard work to get in a position for an economic bluebird to come close enough to grasp. Aside from gambling or winning the lottery, dont think you're going to come close to one of these "right places at the right time" events without hurting your brain or your back.

If you're not accumulating and you're already in ER and if your portfolio allows you to live comfortably on less than 4% of your nestegg, aka the "SWR", its worth pausing and noting that it does look like equities are very expensive and you might consider re-allocating some of your funds to "sure things" like cd's and inflation protected bonds. But I might wait to make long term committments to them until interest rates buoy the yields a little bit. On the other hand, you might be waiting a long time. If part of this strategy consists of eating your portfolio, think about taking on some part time work or cutting expenses, because I have a funny feeling some of us are going to live 10-20 years longer than we think.

I say in the former paragraph that one might want to shift to a larger interest/dividend/fixed income piece knowing that this is greatly contrary to the "balanced index"/"boglehead" crowd. But I do so knowing that even most of these folks openly admit that future returns should be lower than historic, that we're at high valuations, and the epilogue that usually follows high valuations is a crash or long sideways period. Contrarianism of opinions abounds.

If you are operating a smallish portfolio and feel you may need to grow it aggressively or that you need more than 4-5% of your nestegg and might outlive the canibalization of the portfolio, keep working or go back to work while your skills are still marketable.


Honestly up until now I've only been interested in SWR as an academic exercise that I went through to 'get a grip' on my prospects of a long term early retirement, with my eyes wide open to the fact that while we ignore history at our peril, the future holds some interesting times like trying to "win" an unwinnable war on terrorism, running out of oil, polution and global warming, overpopulation, outsourcing, and low fat mcdonalds food.

After this analysis, I dont know how much more 'debate', 'research', 'tool creation', 'trolling', 'anti trolling', 'shoe pissing on', or anything else really needs to take place. All the issues are on the table and everything anyone needs to identify the strategy they want to execute is readily available.

Hocus and JWR1945's points are well taken: buying stocks when they're overpriced could end up forcing you back to work, providing you're still able. Value investing is a good idea. Buying high interest and inflation protected securities are a good way to create stability and surety in ones income stream. A warning call when equities are at an all time high in some measures of valuation shouldnt result in killing the messenger. On the other hand, claims of invention and saving of retirements are hard to place and premature, respectively.

The "historic"/"SWR" crowd also has a point. If you believe the future wont be any worse than the past - and each person can make that determination - buying and holding VBINX as a sole holding should get you through indefinitely if your portfolio size is big enough for Firecalc to cough up a 4% or better number, and you can live on that 4% number. However as the mayans, the romans, the mesopotamians, and any number of other dead societies will tell you, at some point their stuff looked pretty good, had a heck of a history and a really bright future. As mentioned before, I really want to see how many people really have the balls to watch a million dollars turn into 200k, pat themselves on the head and say "by historical perspectives, it will all come back" and hang in there. To use the same historical perspective, the vast majority have lost their nerve.

Since nobody knows what the future holds, pick the strategy that makes you feel good. Put your money where you think its going to work. Revisit the strategies, thinking and whats going on in the world. Make changes if you feel you should and you've "had the hand for it". Or stand there and do nothing.

Worst thing, we have to go back to work part time probably at something trivial or that we do or will learn to like. In my case with no debt, a small withdrawal, a tappable real estate asset, and two people capable of working for another 40+ years, I sleep very well at night. As far as going back to work?

So what?
Last edited by th on Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
User avatar
kathyet
Admin Board Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:00 am

Post by kathyet »

Great!
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Nice post TH

De Gaul and the Norwegian widow salue you. Heh, heh, heh.

Seriously - good summary. I've been almost all of those places you've mentioned over the last thirty yrs at various points in my 'checkered' investment journey.

Balanced index plus dividend stocks - aka - De Gaul and the Norwegian widow.
Mike
*** Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Mike »

My taxable fund is largely in a conservative managed fund at vanguard...
I am thinking you mean Wellesley Admiral. I was looking at both this fund and Wellington. Both of them seem like sensibly run funds for the retiree. I may put some of my taxable portfolio into one of them in the future, it is mainly the current unprecedented valuations of the market that give me pause.
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

Post by th »

Mike wrote:
My taxable fund is largely in a conservative managed fund at vanguard...
I am thinking you mean Wellesley Admiral. I was looking at both this fund and Wellington. Both of them seem like sensibly run funds for the retiree. I may put some of my taxable portfolio into one of them in the future, it is mainly the current unprecedented valuations of the market that give me pause.
That would be the one. For people who just need to know theres a "hand on the wheel" they're about as close price and execution wise to index funds as you can get. The income, capital gain and low volatility are all pretty smooth. At least historically...

Some wisdoms suggest putting half in wellesley and half in wellington to get an approximately 50/50 split with similar thinking in both funds.

Due to valuations, it was one of the few places I wasnt frightened of equity wise. The average PE last time I checked was 14 and a price to book just over 2. Not a lot of room to take a beating there and these are not crappy "kmart" type companies either. The bonds could take a 5-9% pasting from interest rate hikes, but the improving yield may take up part of that slack. Seems like they've been shortening up the bonds a little as well to take up some of that downside risk.

I did reduce my position in Wellesley a little while ago, drawing some down to the short term corporate bond fund in anticipation of the rate increases. I'm not sure if I'll escape much of the loss there as Wellesley seems to be holding its own and the nearer rate increases may already be priced in. Once rates are up a little, I'll shift the money back. If equities drop a bit I might establish an admiral position in wellington instead.

After that I'll likely do nothing indefinitely. I just cant sit idly by while we're clearly overvalued in broad equities (ok, clearly in my opinion), and while interest rate hikes are practically inevitable.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"I don't believe in a "safe withdrawal rate". "

My sense is that what you mean by this is that you personally do not rely on SWR analysis to inform your investment decisions, or at least you don't rely on it too much. That is of course a fine and reasonable position to take.

The problem is that there are a good number in the various Retire Early commmunities who do use SWR analysis to inform their investment decisions. Those people should be told the truth about what the historical data says and should be permitted to ask questions and engage discussions aimed at working through the implications of what the data says.

I have no desire to convert people who do not want to be converted. SWR analysis is certtainly not the only tool that people can use to inform their investment decisions. But I think it is a good way, and I would like to share with community members what the data says, and I would like to hear feedback from others to better inform my understanding of the implications of what the data says.

That is the objective of the "jhiad." What I am trying to do is to open up space on the various boards for people to engage in honest and informed discussions of what the historical data says re SWRs. That is all that I am trying to do.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

For th:

Thanks for an excellent post.

Your last two words confused me:
So what?
I don't understand this question. I interpret it as being dismissive. You might be making a request for a sales pitch, given your background in marketing. If it is an actual request for information, please rephrase your single question into a couple of dozen very specific questions, each with limited scope. [I doubt that it is.]

Here's a sales pitch:

You seem to think that stocks are overpriced. In fact, you seem to think that they are expensive. How did you reach that conclusion?

Why not just go with the efficient market hypothesis, pushed to its most extreme form? Stock prices are always fair. There can never be such a thing as a bubble.

Or how about this: Why shouldn't we expect a new super bubble to follow the bubble? The S&P500 index is well below the bubble peak of [close to] 1485 in August 2000. Why not conclude that stocks are an incredible bargain? [The observation that salaryguru seems to think so does not count!]

Why not just go with the notion that the future is unknown and unknowable?

I suspect that you used some historical information (for insights as to what might be considered normal and reasonable), some objective mathematical calculations (such as price to earnings ratios), some theoretical considerations and some helpful guidance from others (such as rules of thumb).

Those are the kind of thing that we provide.

End of sales pitch.

Have fun.

John R.
Mike
*** Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Mike »

After that I'll likely do nothing indefinitely. I just cant sit idly by while we're clearly overvalued in broad equities (ok, clearly in my opinion), and while interest rate hikes are practically inevitable.
That is my thinking also. My natural couch potato temperament would much prefer to just pop my taxable money into Admiral Wellington (or balanced index/ do it yourself index) and never bother with it again, but I feel compelled to take risk reduction measures due to the unprecedented valuation levels. Especially since I don't understand all of the reasons for current valuations.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

De Gaul - balanced index - my equity % is picked based on my AGE - not whether the market is high, low, fairly priced. The computers at vanguard don't give spit about my emotions. Sort of efficient market/low cost - theory wise.

Norwegian widow - value, dividends(and by extension P/E 10) are important and have a reasonable history of aquiting themselves in all seasons.

SWR analysis - done well is like owning a good microscope - brings to focus and magnifies my ability to stay in the ballpark.

Old school - take the div.s and interest (variable SWR) , let the principle ride. A GOOD SWR ANALYSIS KEEPS ME WITHIN THE OUTER MARKERS SO I DON'T GET INTO TROUBLE --long term wise that is.

So there - I cheat - both efficient market and value.

Also - peek - but don't buy(yet) at the two vg W's and Dodge and Cox and back door Buffett - Sequioa.
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

Post by th »

Hocus -

You are most welcome to continue to talk about anything you like, including SWR. Whatever your feelings are with regards to it, historical, future or present is simply not interesting to *me* any longer. As I said, except for an academic perspective when I was in the mood to be academic, it never really was very interesting. The historic data is something I've looked at, I've checked out many writers of books and their future theories, and I've looked at yours. Coincidentally I'm right about at a 4% withdrawal, but it varies and I can vary it considerably if I choose. That just happens to be the number that produces the income I want. I neither consider it "safe" nor "correct". There is no such thing.

As far as conversions, I'm not sure who, what or why you plan to convert from what to what. If your take is that the old 60/40, 4% swr, index fund, buy and hold forever crowd is wrong and you're right...well, I guess we'll find out in 20-30 years. On the other hand, if that crowd thinks they're right and you're wrong, I hope they fitted themselves for the big shoes, the funny clothes and the big red nose...because they could easily become clowns as well.

I was just talking with someone else about this, and it appears to me that your process should avoid a serious downside risk, but also limits serious upside potential. It should be very appealing to a risk averse investor. Except those probably own little or no equities already.

But like I said...carry on...its simply not for me.

JWR -

The "so what?" related to the "going back to work" comment, as in "so what if we have to go back to work". As I said, in my case with no debt, no mortgage, and a big enough sack of cash, if I see a depletion or a disaster arrives, I wont need much money inflow to pay the bills. Now if you're dragging a $1500 a month mortgage and have more expensive habits, and your portfolio is borderline and highly dependent on equities and their historic returns...you might wanna consider getting back into the workforce.

Equities? They're overvalued because I think they are. One of the "problems" with stock market analysis is that there are two parts. One is mathematical and one is everything except. Its almost impossible to find someone who even grasps both pieces let alone is an expert. In fact, people who really "get" one part of it are almost automatically deficient in the other. Maybe its just a left brain-right brain thing. It appears to me you guys are really good with the mathematics part. Except from what I've seen that only works well in very long time periods, say 30+ years. How are you guys incorporating the non mathematical, non fundamental aspects that move the markets every day?

I still really like Bernsteins "man walking the dog" analogy. Guy takes the dog for a walk. Long term (30 years) they collectively end up predictably at the place the man was walking to (future earnings, dividend growth, etc). Short term the dog darts back and forth in a nearly random manner. The mans movement is where the market goes by fundamentals and thats the numbers piece; the dogs movement is the short term market movement and thats the part that has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers. You guys are, in my opinion, trying to determine when to pull on the leash when the dog goes too far one way or the other, and trying to determine optimal leash length. Only problem is sometimes theres 10' more or 10' less leash than you think and theres no way to tell.

I have in fact used several tools for measuring market value. Most of them are inclined towards the market being overpriced. My best tool though is a straightedge and a chart of the Dow and the S&P. Pretty straight line there until recently, and even at the bottom of the "bear" recently the numbers didnt come back down to that historical trend line.

On one hand there are efficiencies like productivity, global economies, currency optimizations and so forth. On the other hand, ours is a maturing economy that should have less risk premium associated with it.

But my best measuring stick is not based on any system of numbers or math. Its based on collective thinking. If everyone wants to own equities and the reasons they want to own them make no sense, and prices are run up, then they're overvalued. If nobody wants to own equities and the prices are beaten down, they're undervalued. As mentioned before, we never came fully off the irrational "highs" from the late 90's, yet we just ran up 20-50% in some asset classes in the last year amidst suspicious monetary policy, terrorism concerns, an "improved" economy that seems to have been charged on a credit card for purposes of administrative re-election, and reported low inflation in the face of almost everything I buy getting more expensive at a noticeable rate.

I fully expect our economic "recovery" to be exposed as a sham shortly after 1/1/2005, a currency shortage to squeeze creditors, inflation to take off, interest rates to rise, and equities to slam face first into the ground on the heels of the bond market taking a pasting from the rate increases. People with lots of consumer debt, huge variable rate loans or the ones that HELOC'd their newly found equity to buy depreciating assets like cars and toys are going to be very, very, very sorry. Unfortunately thats most of the people in the country.

That makes equities look overvalued to me and therefore the only ones I want to own are low PE, low price/book stocks paying a good dividend, at least in my taxable portfolio.

As far as a sales pitch...yes your system is fine and a good addition to the ones I already have that I look at. Would I make macroscopic changes to my portfolio and investing methods based on it and it only? Not a chance. Would I use it while in the accumulation phase if I was well away from the portfolio size needed to retire? Probably not. Would I use it if I was a highly risk averse investor in retirement with a borderline portfolio? People in that situation are probably already heavily into bonds and eschew equities, so you're preaching to the choir.

The core problem with it is you're trying to measure the dog, and the dog resists measurement. The outcome of that is that you may limit downside risk, but you also limit upside. Crashes can come while stocks are fairly priced, and bubbles can occur when they're already overpriced.

Keep working on it and keep reporting, you guys are people who push the "well accepted theories". But I wouldnt get too frustrated if a whole horde of folks dont rush to acceptance and conformance with it. You're simply pushing against a tide that says what you propose hasnt worked well in the past and theres no way to tell if it'll work in the future until we get there!

I suppose that since I already perceived the overpricing of equities, limited my exposure to them, and then only to low priced ones, I already "groked" this and already acted accordingly. For folks holding large chunks of growth and blend equities, they might want to rethink that. Or stand there and do nothing, bring their brass balls, and hope somehow that it all works out over the long haul

Now, on the other hand, if your pitch is that PE10 is a 90%, 80%, 50% probability tool for saying where the market is headed, then I have to say "bullshit". If you say that owning equities now is pointing yourself towards disaster...well, maybe you're right and I agree with that somewhat, but unless you have a better crystal ball than I do, you simply cant know and we wont know if you're right until time passes by. If your pitch is to stay out of equities and in the cd's and inflation protected securities, well...that is very predictable and any investor worth their salt can see whether that will work for them and if they feel comfortable with it.

So develop on and write on...I'm just not sure what else can be done or expounded on that improves on what is already done and "on paper"...
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

For th:

As far as the numbers are concerned, neither of us considers them to be an end product. They provide a factual background from which a person can build his own strategy.

Knowing that one can be entirely in TIPS and ibonds and withdraw 4% (plus inflation) for an extended amount of time is helpful. That does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. Knowing that switching portfolio allocations would have lifted the survival rate of the past from 4% to 5% is helpful even though it does not apply directly today. [Understanding why it does not apply directly today is important.] It is worth knowing that the precise P/E10 thresholds for shifting allocations was not critically important in the past. [BTW, switching allocations improves your upside potential without sacrificing safety on the downside.]

We do not anticipate providing a single, correct answer for everyone. Every person's needs are unique. Hocus has mentioned at times how he has used Safe Withdrawal Rate analysis in the past to help him make his own investment decisions.

Have fun.

John R.
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

Post by th »

Sounds fine. The only problem you might have with that strategy is outliving your money. My plans dont involve cannibalizing my portfolio.

The only other problem is that the securities Hocus bought at the rates he bought them at are unavailable. But thats only a temporary problem. And you havent addressed the tax implications that I've seen.

I imagine you guys will have lots more to look into.

Good luck with it.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Thank you, th, and Have fun.

John R.
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

Post by th »

Thanks John, I will. You too.

By the way, "have fun" isnt code for "F--- You!", is it? ;)
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Here is the story behind my sign off, Have fun.

Have fun from Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 2:34 pm CST
http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=377

BTW, my daughter has corrected me. It was her Junior Prom.

Have fun.

John R.
th
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Northern CA

Post by th »

Ok, so "have fun" then translates roughly to "have a good time, keep your pants on, and let me know if that little $#^%$ touches you".

Seems odd in this context, but...ok. :P
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Actually, Have fun means to have fun.

Have a good day.

John R.
Post Reply