I can't believe you didn't mention a real estate allocation!
That's all you need to make this work.
BB
A TIPS Ladder Example
hix9 wrote: on the other hand if the comment re: speculative return/metric contraction was the basis for some sort of optimization strategy i guess i can see the origin of the (pre-emptive?) critique but if a switching technique was presented by jwr i missed it.
At the old SWR Research Group discussion board, we successfully identified and developed three major approaches for retirees with stocks at today's valuations. They are allocation switching, dividend-based strategies and our TIPS baselines.
[Our all-TIPS portfolios were intended to be nothing more than baselines for making comparisons. It turns out that our baselines did better than most alternatives that we looked at.]
I conducted extensive investigations into switching.
I have extracted and edited a very short what-you-should-do type switching overview from the SWR Research Group archives. I have just put it on my web site. It should be available for viewing tomorrow in the Edited Posts section.
Have fun.
John Russell
hi jwr
did not mean for that to come across like a challenge (if it did).
i do appreciate the critiques which i think are constructive but just wondering if the thread was becoming too fixated on the multiples contraction comment which seemed speculative and as beach mentioned didn't seem to be a cornerstone of your post anyway.
hix9
did not mean for that to come across like a challenge (if it did).
i do appreciate the critiques which i think are constructive but just wondering if the thread was becoming too fixated on the multiples contraction comment which seemed speculative and as beach mentioned didn't seem to be a cornerstone of your post anyway.
hix9
Last edited by hix9 on Mon May 02, 2005 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
beachbumz wrote: As far as would anyone invest 80% in something that they think will drop 40 to 70% at some point in the next 10 years, I think the answer is a pretty easy no. In fact if you read the original post in this thread, JWR was discussing a 40% TIPS allocation as an alternative to Petey's 20% scenario example. (Based on past posts, I personally don't think he would put 60% in stocks right now.)
Just my 2 cents...
Beachbumz
The answer is far from an easy no because it is not my decision.
Our numbers strongly support a zero percent stock allocation at recent stock market valuations. (We are close to the territory where it can make sense to start adding a minimal allocation of stocks.)
Even then, there are reasons for having a minimal stock allocation regardless of valuations. Ben Graham recommended stock allocations ranging between 25% and 75%, never below 25% and never above 75%, to cover unexpected events.
With a carefully constructed dividend-based strategy, there is little need for anything beyond stocks. [OTOH, cash on the sidelines lets you load up on stocks when they sell at bargain prices and deliver high dividend yields.]
Ask your typical advisor and he is likely to specify a stock allocation regardless of whether the upside potential justifies today's downside risk. Mention prices and he is likely to accuse you of market timing and insist that it is a losing strategy. Ben Graham said just the opposite. As does John Templeton. [The old masters did not use the same definition as today's salemen.]
It can be an easy no for me. But I don't insist that anybody follow my advice. Unclemick has the right idea. Take advantage of what you find useful and make your own decisions.
Have fun.
John Russell
ES wrote: Greetings John :)Peteyperson's original idea was to use up his entire TIPS holdings if necessary. If the bear market were to continue, he still would be satisfied. He would have come through the first ten years OK. [But not everyone would agree. That is the reason that I have considered other ladder lengths.]
Ok ten years. Thanks John. That clears things up a bit for me. But what if the bear were really severe? Then all the TIPS would be gone and you'd still be bleeding all over the place. :shock:I know this is a severe example but I always like to consider the worst case scenario. I would not want to see the bond portion of my port evaporate and still be leaking market stuff after it happened. I'm just thinking out loud a bit.
I would think a rebalancing DCA approach would come out well ahead in such a scenario. What do you think?
This has been an unresolved issue for quite a while. Much of the difficulty is related to the limitations of our calculators. I think that my most recent investigations will lead us toward an understanding.
Peteyperson has been well aware of the issue of intrinsic value and the need to assess your portfolio on the basis of intrinsic value instead of current market prices. This leads us to add better priced investments (value). But do we depart from buy-and-hold? Do we sell our overpriced investments?
We want to get through a rough spot, but how? Is ten years enough? Or do we bleed so much later on that we need to do something different.
In this case, is the best way to get through a long dry spell to spend down a TIPS Ladder or cash buffer? Or is it to dump the stocks in the first place? Lots of people are ready to pounce if you decide to sell. But the numbers tell us that selling is not always a bad idea.
From our investigations, rebalancing adds nothing except in times of high valuations. And even then, it adds very little. The big payoff is from sitting on the sidelines, waiting for conditions to improve. TIPS and ibonds make this possible. Otherwise, we would have to pay a lot of attention to inflation.
Moving small increments from bonds to stocks is very similar to dollar cost averaging, even during distribution, and it is a winner. I think that is an important finding.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
Hi John!
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you meant by that comment. It is YOUR decision regarding YOUR portfolio and that's all that really matters.
That's all I was saying.
I don't believe that I said anything to the contrary. My point was that you had NOT suggested that anyone put 80% in stocks at this point, and apparently didn't think that was a good idea, based on your comments in the very first post. And I agree, we all have to make our own decisions about our portfolio based on the information we have and our expectations for the future.
Beachbumz
JWR1945 wrote:beachbumz wrote: As far as would anyone invest 80% in something that they think will drop 40 to 70% at some point in the next 10 years, I think the answer is a pretty easy no. In fact if you read the original post in this thread, JWR was discussing a 40% TIPS allocation as an alternative to Petey's 20% scenario example. (Based on past posts, I personally don't think he would put 60% in stocks right now.)
Just my 2 cents...
Beachbumz
The answer is far from an easy no because it is not my decision.
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you meant by that comment. It is YOUR decision regarding YOUR portfolio and that's all that really matters.
It can be an easy no for me
That's all I was saying.
But I don't insist that anybody follow my advice. Unclemick has the right idea. Take advantage of what you find useful and make your own decisions.
I don't believe that I said anything to the contrary. My point was that you had NOT suggested that anyone put 80% in stocks at this point, and apparently didn't think that was a good idea, based on your comments in the very first post. And I agree, we all have to make our own decisions about our portfolio based on the information we have and our expectations for the future.
Beachbumz
Life is Good.
-
ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings John :)
I don't think I agree with this John. If we take our example of an extended bear market rebalancing would work well. The time frame is a big factor. If your approaching the end of the accumulation stage that would certainly affect your strategy. I've never been a fan of sitting on the sidelines because no one knows what the market will do. I still think DCA/rebalancing into a balanced portfolio is the way to go. The simpler the better and using index funds of course.
From our investigations, rebalancing adds nothing except in times of high valuations. And even then, it adds very little. The big payoff is from sitting on the sidelines, waiting for conditions to improve. TIPS and ibonds make this possible. Otherwise, we would have to pay a lot of attention to inflation.
I don't think I agree with this John. If we take our example of an extended bear market rebalancing would work well. The time frame is a big factor. If your approaching the end of the accumulation stage that would certainly affect your strategy. I've never been a fan of sitting on the sidelines because no one knows what the market will do. I still think DCA/rebalancing into a balanced portfolio is the way to go. The simpler the better and using index funds of course.
hi beachbumz
i agree with your concerns over using individual stocks. i think since tax law will change (how exactly who knows) loss harvesting might be more important down the road.
i admit though that planning in advance might not be worth the time and too far in advance and you (hopefully) end up with enough gains anyway.
still always looking for reasons to reconsider my current plans (which do include mutual funds but do not include using individual stocks- so far...).
hix9
There was also some talk about tax consequences. With today's low rates, they are not a big deal (amazingly). Who knows how long that will last, but in tax planning you can only plan based on current law and adjust as changes are made.
i agree with your concerns over using individual stocks. i think since tax law will change (how exactly who knows) loss harvesting might be more important down the road.
i admit though that planning in advance might not be worth the time and too far in advance and you (hopefully) end up with enough gains anyway.
still always looking for reasons to reconsider my current plans (which do include mutual funds but do not include using individual stocks- so far...).
hix9
Cheer up, ES, things are much brighter than you imagine.
If we were to have an extended dry spell and if (long-term, smoothed) earnings continued to climb as they have in the past, dividend yields would climb through the roof. That is what happened in the 1970s. They went from 2.9% in the late 1960s, fluctuated just above 3.0% in the early 1970s and grew higher than 5.0% in the early 1980s.
Read up on dividend-based strategies once again. If things go sour for a decade, imitate unclemick. Learn about his hobby stocks. You would be able to get a Safe Withdrawal Rate above 5% that would last well into the indefinite future, much longer than 30 or 40 years. Historically, most of the time, but not always, dividends have increased at least as fast as inflation. Assuming that you had cash available, you would be on easy street.
I am a strong advocate of dollar cost averaging. It is great during accumulation. It reduces the average cost per share that you buy about 5% to 10% (and even more in a volatile market). But here, I am talking about distribution, when you are withdrawing funds. The equivalent of mechanically dollar cost averaging works in reverse, lowering the average cost per share that you sell. I recommend that you time your sales with the hope of getting at least the average price per share during the year. IMHO, you should be able to do just a little bit better. It is reasonable to shoot for a price in the upper third between a stock's (or index fund's) 52-week low and the 52-week high. Don't aim higher. If you do, you are likely to beat yourself up even if you do well.
Yes, I continue to recommend being on the sidelines when the outlook is bleak. TIPS and ibonds make this possible without worry. I would not stay away from stocks indefinitely. I would expect to purchase shares when prices become more attractive as suggested by my research into switching.
But even a TIPS-only account does much better for retirees than most people imagine. You would have 80% of your money available (plus adjustments that match inflation) after a decade of withdrawing 4%. Based on the 1970s experience, you would be able to get dividends higher than 5% that would grow with inflation. Investing the 80% of your principal that remains, you would continue to get 4% of your original balance, but now entirely from dividends. You would never have to sell a single share of stock. Even better, this income stream would continue to grow indefinitely, well beyond 30 or 40 years.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
P.S. Regarding rebalancing, I have not reached a definitive conclusion. I have seen it perform poorly in several specific cases. What is worse, rebalancing can have practical problems that are not included in models. These include transaction costs and taxes. I have drawn the tentative conclusion that rebalancing offers an advantage only when you have no reliable indicator of value. [Be careful to distinguish time frames. There is very little available for the short-term for most of us. There are quite a few reliable indicators for the intermediate-term.]
If we were to have an extended dry spell and if (long-term, smoothed) earnings continued to climb as they have in the past, dividend yields would climb through the roof. That is what happened in the 1970s. They went from 2.9% in the late 1960s, fluctuated just above 3.0% in the early 1970s and grew higher than 5.0% in the early 1980s.
Read up on dividend-based strategies once again. If things go sour for a decade, imitate unclemick. Learn about his hobby stocks. You would be able to get a Safe Withdrawal Rate above 5% that would last well into the indefinite future, much longer than 30 or 40 years. Historically, most of the time, but not always, dividends have increased at least as fast as inflation. Assuming that you had cash available, you would be on easy street.
I am a strong advocate of dollar cost averaging. It is great during accumulation. It reduces the average cost per share that you buy about 5% to 10% (and even more in a volatile market). But here, I am talking about distribution, when you are withdrawing funds. The equivalent of mechanically dollar cost averaging works in reverse, lowering the average cost per share that you sell. I recommend that you time your sales with the hope of getting at least the average price per share during the year. IMHO, you should be able to do just a little bit better. It is reasonable to shoot for a price in the upper third between a stock's (or index fund's) 52-week low and the 52-week high. Don't aim higher. If you do, you are likely to beat yourself up even if you do well.
Yes, I continue to recommend being on the sidelines when the outlook is bleak. TIPS and ibonds make this possible without worry. I would not stay away from stocks indefinitely. I would expect to purchase shares when prices become more attractive as suggested by my research into switching.
But even a TIPS-only account does much better for retirees than most people imagine. You would have 80% of your money available (plus adjustments that match inflation) after a decade of withdrawing 4%. Based on the 1970s experience, you would be able to get dividends higher than 5% that would grow with inflation. Investing the 80% of your principal that remains, you would continue to get 4% of your original balance, but now entirely from dividends. You would never have to sell a single share of stock. Even better, this income stream would continue to grow indefinitely, well beyond 30 or 40 years.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
P.S. Regarding rebalancing, I have not reached a definitive conclusion. I have seen it perform poorly in several specific cases. What is worse, rebalancing can have practical problems that are not included in models. These include transaction costs and taxes. I have drawn the tentative conclusion that rebalancing offers an advantage only when you have no reliable indicator of value. [Be careful to distinguish time frames. There is very little available for the short-term for most of us. There are quite a few reliable indicators for the intermediate-term.]
At the old SWR Research Group discussion board, we successfully identified and developed three major approaches for retirees with stocks at today's valuations. They are allocation switching, dividend-based strategies and our TIPS baselines.
lol, what happened to those valuable datamined "insights"
Have fun.
Ataloss
Ataloss
ES:
Here is some additional material. It might influence your view of standing on the sidelines.
Let us assume that you wish to retire today and withdraw 4% each year.
What happens if you are on the sidelines and the market hits an extended dry spell similar to the 1960s and 1970s?
You are likely to do very well.
Let me take you through some numbers to brighten your outlook.
[Many people will want to skip to the summary first and come back later to read the gory details (that verify my assertions).]
Let us assume that you start entirely invested in TIPS at a 1.6% interest rate. (Ten-year TIPS are getting 1.59% and twenty-year TIPS are getting 1.80% today. You would get less because you are a small investor. But I will ignore that detail.)
Let us say that you withdraw 4.0% of your original balance (plus inflation) every year. You would still have 74% of your initial balance (plus inflation) at the end of a decade.
[Using the equations from my old posts, at an interest rate of 1.6%, the ten-year TIPS equivalent safe withdrawal rate TESWR is 10.96%. Withdrawals of 4.0% would leave a remaining fraction = (TESWR-4.0%)/(TESWR-1.6%) = 74% after ten years.]
To continue receiving 4% (plus inflation) of your initial balance, but now from dividends, you would have to find stocks with dividend yields of 5.4% because you are down to 74% of your original balance (and 4.0% / 0.74 = 5.4%).
When I checked the SP500 index today, it was 1161. Its yield was 1.84%. For the dividend yield to reach 5.4%, we would need to see a price reduction by a factor of 2.93 (since 5.4 / 1.84 = 2.93). This would bring P/E10 all the way down to 9 or 10. [This requires prices to fall below fair value of P/E10 = 14 or 15. It is still above previous lows.]
As an alternative, you could buy good stocks with yields higher than that of the SP500. Assuming that we can buy good companies with a 3.0% dividend yield even at today's prices, we would need prices to collapse by a factor of 1.8 (since 5.4/3.0 = 1.8 ). This corresponds to a P/E10 between 15 and 16, which is very close to fair value (historically). It would not require any overshoot (on the downside).
SUMMARY:
Even with today's horrible interest rates on ten-year TIPS, you can start out withdrawing 4% from an all-TIPS portfolio. Assuming that stock market prices collapse within the next decade, which is likely, you would be in a great position to convert to a dividend-based strategy that would extend your portfolio's survival far into the future. You would never have to sell any shares
What kind of price decrease would be necessary for you to continue making your 4.0% withdrawals (4% of your initial balance plus inflation) indefinitely? If prices were to return to historical norms, dividend yields would climb high enough. You would need to select from high quality companies that currently yield 3.0%. If prices were to fall below their historical norms, falling by a factor of 2.93 from today's prices, the yield on the SP500 index would rise high enough satisfy your needs.
Finally, what if everything worked out wrong? With 1.6% TIPS, you could still withdraw 4.0% (plus inflation) for 32 years before running out of money.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
I've never been a fan of sitting on the sidelines because no one knows what the market will do.
Here is some additional material. It might influence your view of standing on the sidelines.
Let us assume that you wish to retire today and withdraw 4% each year.
What happens if you are on the sidelines and the market hits an extended dry spell similar to the 1960s and 1970s?
You are likely to do very well.
Let me take you through some numbers to brighten your outlook.
[Many people will want to skip to the summary first and come back later to read the gory details (that verify my assertions).]
Let us assume that you start entirely invested in TIPS at a 1.6% interest rate. (Ten-year TIPS are getting 1.59% and twenty-year TIPS are getting 1.80% today. You would get less because you are a small investor. But I will ignore that detail.)
Let us say that you withdraw 4.0% of your original balance (plus inflation) every year. You would still have 74% of your initial balance (plus inflation) at the end of a decade.
[Using the equations from my old posts, at an interest rate of 1.6%, the ten-year TIPS equivalent safe withdrawal rate TESWR is 10.96%. Withdrawals of 4.0% would leave a remaining fraction = (TESWR-4.0%)/(TESWR-1.6%) = 74% after ten years.]
To continue receiving 4% (plus inflation) of your initial balance, but now from dividends, you would have to find stocks with dividend yields of 5.4% because you are down to 74% of your original balance (and 4.0% / 0.74 = 5.4%).
When I checked the SP500 index today, it was 1161. Its yield was 1.84%. For the dividend yield to reach 5.4%, we would need to see a price reduction by a factor of 2.93 (since 5.4 / 1.84 = 2.93). This would bring P/E10 all the way down to 9 or 10. [This requires prices to fall below fair value of P/E10 = 14 or 15. It is still above previous lows.]
As an alternative, you could buy good stocks with yields higher than that of the SP500. Assuming that we can buy good companies with a 3.0% dividend yield even at today's prices, we would need prices to collapse by a factor of 1.8 (since 5.4/3.0 = 1.8 ). This corresponds to a P/E10 between 15 and 16, which is very close to fair value (historically). It would not require any overshoot (on the downside).
SUMMARY:
Even with today's horrible interest rates on ten-year TIPS, you can start out withdrawing 4% from an all-TIPS portfolio. Assuming that stock market prices collapse within the next decade, which is likely, you would be in a great position to convert to a dividend-based strategy that would extend your portfolio's survival far into the future. You would never have to sell any shares
What kind of price decrease would be necessary for you to continue making your 4.0% withdrawals (4% of your initial balance plus inflation) indefinitely? If prices were to return to historical norms, dividend yields would climb high enough. You would need to select from high quality companies that currently yield 3.0%. If prices were to fall below their historical norms, falling by a factor of 2.93 from today's prices, the yield on the SP500 index would rise high enough satisfy your needs.
Finally, what if everything worked out wrong? With 1.6% TIPS, you could still withdraw 4.0% (plus inflation) for 32 years before running out of money.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
Heh,heh
Or you apply some 'insight' (pun intended) to this thread. Buy Vanguard Target Retirement Series - Income -take out the 3.75% current yield. Keep some Cash for the other 0.25% or even be frivolous and take out 4%. When Mr Market and the march of time presents acceptable current yield in one of other offerings in the series you can switch to that one.
S.I. Hayakawa - "The word is not the thing." Likewise the examples/math here are not the thing. The "insight" or principle demonstrated (if you don't like insight) are yours to grasp and implement in your own way.
Heck! With something as 'lazy' as Target - you have time to go off and do Real Estate on the side.
Again the transition(within 10 yrs of ER) and the first 10 yrs of ER or 20 total are as noted by others - perhaps the most grippy/tricky.
Going into my 12th year of ER, I can say: "lighten up! It's not that hard, provided you stick with fundamentals." Of course back in the stretch I had a few nervous moments - which were nits in hindsight.
De Gaul and the Norwegian widow wish you well.
Or you apply some 'insight' (pun intended) to this thread. Buy Vanguard Target Retirement Series - Income -take out the 3.75% current yield. Keep some Cash for the other 0.25% or even be frivolous and take out 4%. When Mr Market and the march of time presents acceptable current yield in one of other offerings in the series you can switch to that one.
S.I. Hayakawa - "The word is not the thing." Likewise the examples/math here are not the thing. The "insight" or principle demonstrated (if you don't like insight) are yours to grasp and implement in your own way.
Heck! With something as 'lazy' as Target - you have time to go off and do Real Estate on the side.
Again the transition(within 10 yrs of ER) and the first 10 yrs of ER or 20 total are as noted by others - perhaps the most grippy/tricky.
Going into my 12th year of ER, I can say: "lighten up! It's not that hard, provided you stick with fundamentals." Of course back in the stretch I had a few nervous moments - which were nits in hindsight.
De Gaul and the Norwegian widow wish you well.
wonder what petey would think of depending on 1.5% real tips in view of the doubts he has expressed about government cpi determinations:
petey:
http://www.raddr-pages.com/forums/viewt ... =3171#3171
jwr:
in post 30369
looks to me like planning for 1% inflation above cpi-u will hurt the returns prjections for 1.5% real tips
petey:
Cos they mess with the numbers. Period. There is no other reasonable explanation! If they were not messing with the numbers and yet the basket of goods were not going up in the same manner then they are calculating their math wrong.. Pretty simple.
So yes, it is a con job. The inflation figure put out does not match how fast goods in the shops are going up by, which defeats the object of the whole exercise! Ergo, I bump my inflation estimate by 1% from the UK gov't published numbers. I shouldn't have to guess at this because the numbers are a sham! Public information should be helpful
http://www.raddr-pages.com/forums/viewt ... =3171#3171
jwr:
The big payoff is from sitting on the sidelines, waiting for conditions to improve. TIPS and ibonds make this possible. Otherwise, we would have to pay a lot of attention to inflation.
in post 30369
looks to me like planning for 1% inflation above cpi-u will hurt the returns prjections for 1.5% real tips
Have fun.
Ataloss
Ataloss
I am also not certain that waiting for a decade will ensure that the dividends get to 5-6%? What do I do if no real change in valuations or divs? Wait out another 10 years burning through TIPs?
Like petey and Bill Gross I also believe the official nos are of with about 1%. How does that affect my real ending nos living of TIPs?
But JWR; maybe we can run some nos on TIPs today combined with DVY in a 50/50% portfolio? I am guessing at a FSWR of a bit less than 4% but not much.
Cheers!
Like petey and Bill Gross I also believe the official nos are of with about 1%. How does that affect my real ending nos living of TIPs?
But JWR; maybe we can run some nos on TIPs today combined with DVY in a 50/50% portfolio? I am guessing at a FSWR of a bit less than 4% but not much.
Cheers!
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
Hi ben, I think what is missed in some of the simple minded scenarios is the dependence on the official cpi number
I don't agree with petey that there is an intentional understatement
if you run the numbers for 1.5% real tips and 3% inflation for 40 years then change the assumption so that inflation is 4% making the real part of the return .5% then you pay 20% tax (prety low btw) you break even in purchasing power
higher taxes and your tips investment loses
also I think jwr has given up on calculationg actual fswrs
I don't agree with petey that there is an intentional understatement
if you run the numbers for 1.5% real tips and 3% inflation for 40 years then change the assumption so that inflation is 4% making the real part of the return .5% then you pay 20% tax (prety low btw) you break even in purchasing power
higher taxes and your tips investment loses
also I think jwr has given up on calculationg actual fswrs
Have fun.
Ataloss
Ataloss
So the simple minded scenarios are stunningly effective - got you guys to thinking about the what if's and considering variations.
BTY - The DVY idea is interesting. If not cpu adjusted - what are the alternatives. ?? What else is out there to provide the anchoring - other than Beachbumz's real estate( only slightly tongue in cheek). Real estate is er - calculator challenged - heh, heh.
BTY - The DVY idea is interesting. If not cpu adjusted - what are the alternatives. ?? What else is out there to provide the anchoring - other than Beachbumz's real estate( only slightly tongue in cheek). Real estate is er - calculator challenged - heh, heh.
ben wrote: I am also not certain that waiting for a decade will ensure that the dividends get to 5-6%? What do I do if no real change in valuations or divs? Wait out another 10 years burning through TIPs?
Like petey and Bill Gross I also believe the official nos are of with about 1%. How does that affect my real ending nos living of TIPs?
But JWR; maybe we can run some nos on TIPs today combined with DVY in a 50/50% portfolio? I am guessing at a FSWR of a bit less than 4% but not much.
Cheers!
I wish to keep away from arguments about inflation. There is another side to the argument, I am aware of it, but you will seldom hear it. Almost all of the time, a person who argues in favor of lowering the reported CPI is arguing in favor of cutting his own income. There are a few economists who are willing to do so. But most people are uncomfortable trying to convince you that they are being paid too much.
There is no need to stick to a single strategy during retirement. It helps our analysis when we keep things simple. Otherwise, you have considerable flexibility. At times, we find that a person is best off theoretically by treating everything as a single portfolio. The story can be different when it comes to the real world.
You can make a good analogy by looking at corporate budgets. Ideally, there is a best combination. In reality, if you don't keep budget items separate, budget discipline vanishes.
DVY has gone straight up. It was selling at a small 0.13% premium when I looked. It has a current yield of 3.0%.
I think that it is reasonable to expect DVY to deliver its yield indefinitely. It will fluctuate. But in terms of purchases that you make today, I think that you will continue to receive a dividend amount that matches inflation or does better than inflation (although somewhat erratically). In terms of selling DVY shares in the future, I do not have a good basis for estimating prices.
In terms of 1.6% TIPS (as with a TIPS ladder consisting of 10 and 20 year TIPS, possibly with ibonds), the mortgage formula tells us that you could withdraw 4.22% for 30 years or 3.40% for 40 years or 2.92% for 50 years (assuming that you can continue to buy 1.6% TIPS in the future).
Comparing the two investments, both deliver close to 3% plus inflation for a very long time. With TIPS, you run out of money around 50 years. But you can count on having an inflation adjustment every year. With DVY, you are likely to do a little bit better than 3% plus inflation and still have your original principal at 50 years. But dividend growth can be erratic. You could fall behind inflation for 5 to 10 years before catching up. But I would expect you to catch up.
If you use both strategies, you will have to assume some risk. But it does not have to be excessive risk.
So far, I have spoken in terms of 4.0% withdrawals. How about something closer to 3.5% from your combined portfolio? The DVY portion would deliver 3.0% indefinitely, but erratically. If you withdraw 4.0% from TIPS (at 1.6% interest), they would last 32 years. The question now becomes how well you expect DVY and stocks in general to do over three decades. I suspect that you would be able to fill in the void caused by the short 32-year lifetime of your TIPS ladder.
Checking yesterday's calculations, I find that I used an interest rate of 1.7%, not 1.6%. The principal remaining after ten years with 1.6% TIPS would be 69.9% of the original amount (not 74%) plus inflation. After 20 years it would be down to 35.6% with 1.6% TIPS.
An all-TIPS alternative would be to withdraw 3.5% instead of 4%. You could continue doing this for 38 years. Your principal remaining would be 80% (with 1.6% TIPS) at year 10 and 56% at year 20 (and 27% at year 30). I would hope that you would find at least one buying opportunity in two decades.
That takes care of two strategies. The third is switching. It starts out a TIPS-only portfolio. You start adding a little bit of stock when P/E10 comes down around 24. (You might decide to adjust this threshold slightly.) That approach leads to a more gradual transition. You will not stay away from stocks forever.
Finally, consider Ben Graham's advice, which would have worked well in the late 1990s. He restricted both of his stock and bond allocations to 25% to 75% regardless of circumstance. There is always the possibility that a new super bubble will follow the bubble.
Have fun.
John Russell