What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by H-Town »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
It’s helpful for those who are in accumulation phase. It’ll give them a goal to work towards to: both controlling expense (the x) and saving (the multiplier).

Once you cross the finish line, then you have the freedom to do anything you want and all the time in the world to do them.

We crossed 50x milestone. We still have a lot of human capital left, so we’re not putting 3M in safe assets yet.
Time is the ultimate currency.
Wanderingwheelz
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:52 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Wanderingwheelz »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
There’s no shame in seeking the advice of a highly regarded financial professional. Bozos are our there for sure, but there are some really good ones.
Being wrong compounds forever.
Samueul
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:28 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Samueul »

JVT wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:07 am
Samueul wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:44 pm
Pigeye Brewster wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:02 pm
MathWizard wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:57 pm[...]
From a 2/17/2015 WSJ article by Bill Bernstein titled "How to Tell if Your Retirement Nest Egg is Big Enough":
Add up your basic annual expenses, and make sure to include taxes you'll owe on required and voluntary withdrawals on your retirement accounts and on the income and capital gains in your taxable assets. Then subtract your Social Security and, if you're lucky, pensions checks. This leaves you with your residual living expenses, or RLE.

If you need $70,000 a year to meet expenses and pay taxes - and if your Social Security and pension income amounts to $30,000 a year - you must come up with an RLE of $40,000. A good rule of thumb is to have, at the very least, 25 years of RLE saved up to retire at 60, 20 years to retire at 65, and 17 years to retire at 70 - or in this case $1 million, $800,000 and $680,000, respectively.
He later adds:
Both historical back testing and Monte Carlo analysis suggest that a 65-year-old with only 20 years of RLE in his nest egg should hold no more than 50% of his portfolio in equities; if you have 35 years of RLE, then up to 70% is probably safe; and if you have 50 years of RLE, then even an all-stock portfolio is probably safe if you can stomach it.
As a federal employee at 49 and 13 years until my projected retirement, if I follow this rational for RLE using today’s dollars I’m already exceeding my RLE (roughly $48000) by a few thousand dollars just with my Federal FERS pension and Social Security calculation. I’m having a hard time believing that is the case? I’m on track to have quite a bit more taking into account my TSP, Roth, and taxable. Does that mean I’m well on my way to “winning the game”?
Having a pension makes it much easier to 'win the game' by reducing the amount your portfolio has to support. The risk here is that you have not fully won as you are counting on 13 years of benefits assuming future work and no changes to the pension system. The other big factor is that if you have to make sure any reductions in saving don't increase your RLE to the point that the pension and social security are not enough to cover them. Cutting say 10k a year in savings and getting used to that in your base line budget would increase your RLE from 48k to 58k, at which point you would need to make sure your pensions + portfolio income still supports that withdrawal rate. Look into CoastFIRE.

As another fed in FERS, I tend to look only at the MRA + 10 vested balance and discount it over the years until retirement when the COLA's start rather than focusing on the full retirement age estimated benefit. While I might plan on working to retirement age, something could always come up. Once I get closer I will focus more on the full retirement age benefit, but I would be careful declaring that 'I won the game' until the benefits that you are currently vested with and could retire today with plus portfolio fully cover you RLE.
Great advice, thank you.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by watchnerd »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
Maybe some of us find the X numbers more discreet than throwing out raw seven figure portfolio numbers.

The internet is full of predators.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Wanderingwheelz wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:33 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
There’s no shame in seeking the advice of a highly regarded financial professional. Bozos are our there for sure, but there are some really good ones.
I did once consult a financial professional well regarded by many here; he didn’t have an answer either.

Yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of the breakaway soccer league. The journalist said it was a €400 Billion, then said maybe that was €400 Million. In fact, as it turned out, the JPM backed league was a 4 Billion endeavor and each of the 10 premium teams would get €400 Million. Or, something with a 4 in it. :D

It’s like the comical postings where someone in describing their assets includes cents. I can see the ease of copy/paste, but sometimes I wonder if the poster is aware that the numbers change daily. Sharp pencils and spreadsheets give a false sense of accuracy and predictability, and I worry about those whose futures are carefully calculated; it’s like the old joke about “I’ve got all the money I need as long as I die before noon next Thursday.”

My point is that for all the discussion of the multiplier, asset allocation, etc., I see little discussion of x and its large standard deviation.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Jags4186
Posts: 8198
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:12 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Jags4186 »

To me it means don't invest stupidly with unnecessary risk so that once you have succeeded in achieving financial independence, you stay there. In other words, shift to investing for capital preservation instead of capital growth.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12821
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by retired@50 »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:57 am
It’s like the comical postings where someone in describing their assets includes cents. I can see the ease of copy/paste, but sometimes I wonder if the poster is aware that the numbers change daily. Sharp pencils and spreadsheets give a false sense of accuracy and predictability, and I worry about those whose futures are carefully calculated; it’s like the old joke about “I’ve got all the money I need as long as I die before noon next Thursday.”
Yes, like when an economist uses decimal points in their prediction for inflation or interest rates. Not something like "roughly 2 to 3 percent inflation", but 2.3% inflation.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by H-Town »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:57 am
Wanderingwheelz wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:33 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
There’s no shame in seeking the advice of a highly regarded financial professional. Bozos are our there for sure, but there are some really good ones.
I did once consult a financial professional well regarded by many here; he didn’t have an answer either.

Yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of the breakaway soccer league. The journalist said it was a €400 Billion, then said maybe that was €400 Million. In fact, as it turned out, the JPM backed league was a 4 Billion endeavor and each of the 10 premium teams would get €400 Million. Or, something with a 4 in it. :D

It’s like the comical postings where someone in describing their assets includes cents. I can see the ease of copy/paste, but sometimes I wonder if the poster is aware that the numbers change daily. Sharp pencils and spreadsheets give a false sense of accuracy and predictability, and I worry about those whose futures are carefully calculated; it’s like the old joke about “I’ve got all the money I need as long as I die before noon next Thursday.”

My point is that for all the discussion of the multiplier, asset allocation, etc., I see little discussion of x and its large standard deviation.
And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.

Also big house and luxury cars have a big part in inflating your x. Just compare the price of a new house to the price of the house you paid for 15-20 years ago. And compare the price of a 2021 new car model to the price of a new car in the last decade. If you continue to buy new house and buy new cars, that x will double with a blink of an eye.
Time is the ultimate currency.
Dude2
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: FL

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Dude2 »

H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 amAlso big house and luxury cars have a big part in inflating your x. Just compare the price of a new house to the price of the house you paid for 15-20 years ago. And compare the price of a 2021 new car model to the price of a new car in the last decade. If you continue to buy new house and buy new cars, that x will double with a blink of an eye.
Also seems like the x can get blown away from a personal black swan, i.e. health issues for individual, family, or relative. I never understood FIRE, and am in the camp of those that keep earning while it is still possible to do so.
Then ’tis like the breath of an unfee’d lawyer.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
Guilty. But, if we save a good percentage of our income, what’s the upside of a budget? It might be different for us in that x isn’t out of control; it’s just that I don’t know what the long term x is.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
fatcoffeedrinker
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:03 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by fatcoffeedrinker »

Deleted
Last edited by fatcoffeedrinker on Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12821
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by retired@50 »

fatcoffeedrinker wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:30 am
But earn for so long as it is possible to do so? No thanks, I don't want to die at my desk. I'll include reasonable cushions in my plan and then pull the ripcord to a freer life.
To me, having a freer life is the main reason to save. Having control over your own time is huge. I can do what I want, when I want. No alarm clock, no boss, no customers.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
AlohaJoe
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by AlohaJoe »

"Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
PDX_Traveler
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:18 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by PDX_Traveler »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am [...]
I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
I have a somewhat naive question - in your plan, is the $3M in safe assets a fixed number or would you reduce that as you age? Or do you keep topping that up to near that number from the risk side as and when possible? Thanks
bradshaw1965
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bradshaw1965 »

Regret minimization on a sliding scale. A lot of people will have 100% equity out of habit and take a loss that's difficult to recover without it having much effect on their lifestyle. It's a challenging time to decide how much to de-risk. Bogleheads tend to carry things too far in my opinion but at the same time if it provides some existential comfort who am I to judge?
PDX_Traveler
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:18 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by PDX_Traveler »

H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:57 am
Wanderingwheelz wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:33 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am [...]
Also big house and luxury cars have a big part in inflating your x. Just compare the price of a new house to the price of the house you paid for 15-20 years ago. And compare the price of a 2021 new car model to the price of a new car in the last decade. If you continue to buy new house and buy new cars, that x will double with a blink of an eye.
If you are referring to lifestyle creep, I agree with you. If you are talking about inflation, though - not sure I do. As I look at it, the "multiples of expenses" estimation is related to the SWR studies - so, 25x, 50x depending on 4%, or 2% SWR etc. The SWR guidelines include inflation in the numbers so that that is not an external, unaccounted factor - isn't that right?
bradshaw1965
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bradshaw1965 »

Dude2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:08 am I never understood FIRE, and am in the camp of those that keep earning while it is still possible to do so.
Gets tricky the last few years. The balance between time on earth and the likelihood of funding your heirs lifestyle is something I have struggled with.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

PDX_Traveler wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:19 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am [...]
I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
I have a somewhat naive question - in your plan, is the $3M in safe assets a fixed number or would you reduce that as you age? Or do you keep topping that up to near that number from the risk side as and when possible? Thanks
Not a naive question at all, inasmuch as I don’t have a definite answer. It has actually organically grown to be approx 20% more than the original number. My wife is still working, so we are not actually drawing anything down.

My plan (God laughs to herself off stage) is to draw down on safe assets when necessary (RMDs); we probably won’t spend all of that, and my plan is to invest the overage in equities. If we have an extraordinarily large expenditure (not planned, but who knows), I would take that from equities usually, but if equities had a bad year or three, I’d rather not sell low, so maybe I’d take from safe assets.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
bradshaw1965
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bradshaw1965 »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
I sincerely understand your post, have had the same struggles but eventually came to the conclusion that future generations are only my concern in the very abstract. Making imaginary concrete case studies like you do above is not the right approach for me and I say that very respectfully.
User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bligh »

MathWizard wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:28 am I've often seen answers include the recommendation "When you've won the game,stop playing."

What does this mean in practice?
That advice is usually meant that you should de-risk. ie. If, for example, you are 60 years old and have 25x of your expenses already saved for retirement and have a decent amount of social security to look forward to, you shouldn't have those 25x in 100% equities. You should de risk and have a significant chunk in bonds (though how much to have in bonds varies. Some will say 40% other's will say 50 or 60%). So the advice isn't very specific.

This is good advice, but it could be phrased better. After all, the game isn't really over until you (and your spouse) are dead.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by KlangFool »

H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am
And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
H-Town,

Why do you need a budget to track and control your spending?

A) Do not overspend on big items.

B) Deposit a fixed amount to your checking account at regular interval.

C) When the balance in the checking account going low, reduce your spending.

d) It may not be necessary to track the small items when the person do not overspend on the big items.

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by KlangFool »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am
Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?
TomatoTomahto,

The answer is very simple and obvious. Your portfolio is very big (50X and above) as compared to your annual expense. Hence, it won't matter what the X is. And, you do not need to control X.

For someone like me with a smaller portfolio, I need to control my annual expense.

X doesn't matter to you. Hence, you do not need to know or control it.

X matter to me. Hence, I control it to a certain range.

You are OBLIVIOUS to how wealthy you are as compared to rest of us.

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
AlohaJoe
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by AlohaJoe »

bradshaw1965 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:39 am
AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
I sincerely understand your post, have had the same struggles but eventually came to the conclusion that future generations are only my concern in the very abstract. Making imaginary concrete case studies like you do above is not the right approach for me and I say that very respectfully.
I'm not sure what you mean about abstract and imaginary case studies. I know a retired couple that suddenly became custodian for their eight year old grand daughter when their son in law murdered their daughter and two year old grand daughter (and then committed suicide in prison). That's not an abstract future generation nor an imaginary case study. Does a 30x TIPS ladder have enough to suddenly need to pay for being a parent again, childcare, extra cars, covering university costs, etc, etc, etc? They had "won the game" by Bernstein's definition but the real world had other plans.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21281
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by HomerJ »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:23 am
H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
Guilty. But, if we save a good percentage of our income, what’s the upside of a budget? It might be different for us in that x isn’t out of control; it’s just that I don’t know what the long term x is.
Just look at your current x. It's not that hard to figure out. Sure, it might be different in 10 years... so give yourself a buffer.

We used to track our spending... then we got to the point where we'd spend all our money from one account, and just track that one account.

It started with $10,000, we put in $6000 a month, and at the end of the year, we still had around $10,000 in the account. Did that for 3 years... (didn't pay for a new car out of that account, but paid for a new AC and other house repairs).

So it seems like we're living on around $72,000 a year.

But health care is a big unknown... So add in another $1000 a month for that (wife will be on Medicare soon, otherwise I'd say $1500). And then we may spend more in retirement if we travel more (although we were already doing one big trip a year and a couple of smaller trips on the original budget)

Oh heck, let's just say $100,000 a year.

There you go... I've got an X I can work around.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by marcopolo »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
Seems the only solution is that everyone should keep working full bore until they die.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
solarcub
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by solarcub »

For me, "won the game stop playing" would probably mean moving to 50/50 once I got to some large multiple (30x? 50x?) of annual expenses. Even though I would still be 50% in stocks, to me that's not "playing" all that much, because you're not really trying to get big returns at 50/50, and you're not risking that much, because your bonds will carry you for a lot of years if needed.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by H-Town »

KlangFool wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:49 am
H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am
And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
H-Town,

Why do you need a budget to track and control your spending?

A) Do not overspend on big items.

B) Deposit a fixed amount to your checking account at regular interval.

C) When the balance in the checking account going low, reduce your spending.

d) It may not be necessary to track the small items when the person do not overspend on the big items.

KlangFool
I think we talk about the same thing, just a different terminology. What you described above is “budgeting” in my mind. Track your expenses and have an idea of how much you are going to spend this year and at least for the next 5 years.

I don’t subscribe to micro managing budget, I.e. set $500 a month for groceries and so on. I just track my expense and know which portion is fixed, and which portion is discretionary. And I have this data all the way back. So in that way, I do my best to control “the x”.
Time is the ultimate currency.
Dude2
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: FL

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Dude2 »

marcopolo wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:54 am
AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
Seems the only solution is that everyone should keep working full bore until they die.
Clearly there are physical changes and health related issues that naturally occur to people as they get older, and there is a generally socially accepted retirement age. This forum is not a FIRE forum specifically, but we get many such people here. I've got nothing against anybody, but it does stick in my craw to see posts from people in their 30s looking to retire early. This may simply be a class issue. The majority are going to be the "normal" retirement age types. In fact, the media bombards us with facts related to how high a percentage will retire with zero savings. My mother is one of those, and she currently lives with me. Anyway, there are widely varying perspectives on this and no one-size-fits-all answer. No offense intended. FIRE away.
Then ’tis like the breath of an unfee’d lawyer.
User avatar
mrspock
Posts: 2158
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:49 am
Location: Vulcan

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by mrspock »

Dude2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:08 am
H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 amAlso big house and luxury cars have a big part in inflating your x. Just compare the price of a new house to the price of the house you paid for 15-20 years ago. And compare the price of a 2021 new car model to the price of a new car in the last decade. If you continue to buy new house and buy new cars, that x will double with a blink of an eye.
Also seems like the x can get blown away from a personal black swan, i.e. health issues for individual, family, or relative. I never understood FIRE, and am in the camp of those that keep earning while it is still possible to do so.
I’m in the camp of enjoying life while it is still possible to do so.

There isn’t a health issue on the face of this earth that can bankrupt me if I hold adequate insurance. Zero. Zilch.

As for family members, I’m not going to bankrupt myself in some attempt to save somebody because they didn’t bother to carry health insurance. They should incur the medical costs (which cannot be denied if life threatening), and declare bankruptcy afterwards. Simple as that.

To be brutally honest: I’ve known enough folks who can’t manage money, to know that I could give them my entire estate and it wouldn’t make any difference. I put my own oxygen mask on first, and I can be of better use them.
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by marcopolo »

Dude2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:12 pm
marcopolo wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:54 am
AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
Seems the only solution is that everyone should keep working full bore until they die.
Clearly there are physical changes and health related issues that naturally occur to people as they get older, and there is a generally socially accepted retirement age. This forum is not a FIRE forum specifically, but we get many such people here. I've got nothing against anybody, but it does stick in my craw to see posts from people in their 30s looking to retire early. This may simply be a class issue. The majority are going to be the "normal" retirement age types. In fact, the media bombards us with facts related to how high a percentage will retire with zero savings. My mother is one of those, and she currently lives with me. Anyway, there are widely varying perspectives on this and no one-size-fits-all answer. No offense intended. FIRE away.
It is not clear to me why other people discussing early retirement would "stick in your craw", can you explain your objection?

Most people on this forum are not "lean FIRE" planners that are early retiring on a shoe string budget. Mostly what I have observed are high income/saving people who plan to retire early with 30-40x or more, where the X includes a lot of discretionary expenses. If some of life's uncertainties materialize some or all of the discretionary spending can be redirected to deal with them. You know, like everyone does during the rest of their life.

Very few can fund every conceivable misfortune that might occur, even if they continue to work all their life. It seems nearly impossible to do that in retirement as well. The only solution, if that is your goal, is to continue working to accumulate as much money as you can for your entire life, and you still are quite unliikely to achieve that state.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
deikel
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by deikel »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:35 am In our case, it meant putting $3M in various safe assets (eg, Stable Value fund, TBM, etc). Everything else goes to equities.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but if you need 3% real, you haven’t “won the game.” You’re ahead in the 3rd period :sharebeer

IMO, winning the game means that 0% real is sufficient. Of course we’d rather have real gains, but we could withstand a 50%+decline in equities (our heirs would get less).
The goal is to not having to work for money anymore (maybe choosing to do so, but not needing to). Your definition would make me work much longer then needed - that's not winning to me - that actually loosing.

If the usual consensus is that 4% is a safe withdrawal, OP suggests 3% real would be winning and your definition is 0% real is winning, then we are in a new territory of conservative.
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

deikel wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:35 pm The goal is to not having to work for money anymore (maybe choosing to do so, but not needing to). Your definition would make me work much longer then needed - that's not winning to me - that actually loosing [sic].
I never prescribed our situation/approach for anyone. My wife works because it gratifies her, not to “run up the score” (enough sports metaphors?).
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Dude2
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: FL

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Dude2 »

marcopolo wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:30 pmIt is not clear to me why other people discussing early retirement would "stick in your craw", can you explain your objection?
Because this is mostly coming from very naïve people who think they have an answer for everything. It's a bit like the irrational exuberance that shows up every time a bull market occurs. I'm all for posts that promote picking a plan and sticking to it, understanding that investing is boring. I'm not in favor of a kind of "get rich quick scheme" type of post. In other words, there are no shortcuts in life. What goes up, comes down. There's a difference to "winning the game" being about gathering enough net worth based on many years of building it up through education and hard work, and then there's the image of sitting around a poker table, bluffing a bunch of people, getting in and out at just the right time...that's not what this forum is about. Whatever objections I may have to the risks of getting out of the game too soon, somebody can just say, oh, we'll just arbitrage that aspect away. Sure. The other part is that posters tend to have a very me-focused view, not seeing themselves as part of a larger something.
Then ’tis like the breath of an unfee’d lawyer.
PDX_Traveler
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:18 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by PDX_Traveler »

Dude2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:55 pm
marcopolo wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:30 pmIt is not clear to me why other people discussing early retirement would "stick in your craw", can you explain your objection?
Because this is mostly coming from very naïve people who think they have an answer for everything. It's a bit like the irrational exuberance that shows up every time a bull market occurs. I'm all for posts that promote picking a plan and sticking to it, understanding that investing is boring. I'm not in favor of a kind of "get rich quick scheme" type of post. In other words, there are no shortcuts in life. What goes up, comes down. There's a difference to "winning the game" being about gathering enough net worth based on many years of building it up through education and hard work, and then there's the image of sitting around a poker table, bluffing a bunch of people, getting in and out at just the right time...that's not what this forum is about. Whatever objections I may have to the risks of getting out of the game too soon, somebody can just say, oh, we'll just arbitrage that aspect away. Sure. The other part is that posters tend to have a very me-focused view, not seeing themselves as part of a larger something.
While I think you are over positioning some of the viewpoints expressed (not every person talking about FIRE is taking a poker table mentality , at least here in this forum, for example) - I do agree that bull markets breed outbursts of posts along the lines of wanting to get out, get ahead, etc.
Probably another good indicator of market sentiment for those who follow along those metrics!
marcopolo
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:22 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by marcopolo »

Dude2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:55 pm
marcopolo wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:30 pmIt is not clear to me why other people discussing early retirement would "stick in your craw", can you explain your objection?
Because this is mostly coming from very naïve people who think they have an answer for everything. It's a bit like the irrational exuberance that shows up every time a bull market occurs. I'm all for posts that promote picking a plan and sticking to it, understanding that investing is boring. I'm not in favor of a kind of "get rich quick scheme" type of post. In other words, there are no shortcuts in life. What goes up, comes down. There's a difference to "winning the game" being about gathering enough net worth based on many years of building it up through education and hard work, and then there's the image of sitting around a poker table, bluffing a bunch of people, getting in and out at just the right time...that's not what this forum is about. Whatever objections I may have to the risks of getting out of the game too soon, somebody can just say, oh, we'll just arbitrage that aspect away. Sure. The other part is that posters tend to have a very me-focused view, not seeing themselves as part of a larger something.

Interesting. Are you talking about this forum, or the broader FIRE movement? I guess it is a bit if Rorschach test where people see different things. On this forum, I see mostly people working in tech/medicine/law, etc. that have very high income and savings rate and are contemplating getting out early with substantial nest eggs.

Do you consider making $500k/yt at a high tech company a "get rich quick scheme"? and not based on education and hard work? If not, can you give some examples from this forum?

Much more than people getting out too early, there seems to be more of the "We have $5M accumulated, and have a pension that covers most our spending, i am burned out, do you think we can retire?" type posts. I guess in your view it would be selfish, and not being "part of a larger something" if such a person were to retire a bit early.

Do you think the only way to be "part of a larger something" is to work for money? That seems quite unimaginitive.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
bradshaw1965
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bradshaw1965 »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:20 am
bradshaw1965 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:39 am
AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:45 am "Won the game" means you have enough money that you can pay for every single one of your children and grandchildren having special needs care for their entire life. If you can't do that then you clearly haven't won yet.

I suppose there are probably some grandparents out there who wouldn't compromise on their retirement if it meant having to pay for a severely autistic grandchild after the money was put into a persistent vegetative state after a car crash. But all the real world people I know would have no hesitation about spending themselves into bankruptcy if they found themselves in a situation like that.

I doubt 100x is enough for that. People who think 30x is enough to insulate from everything that could possibly go wrong in life sorely lack imagination.
I sincerely understand your post, have had the same struggles but eventually came to the conclusion that future generations are only my concern in the very abstract. Making imaginary concrete case studies like you do above is not the right approach for me and I say that very respectfully.
I'm not sure what you mean about abstract and imaginary case studies. I know a retired couple that suddenly became custodian for their eight year old grand daughter when their son in law murdered their daughter and two year old grand daughter (and then committed suicide in prison). That's not an abstract future generation nor an imaginary case study. Does a 30x TIPS ladder have enough to suddenly need to pay for being a parent again, childcare, extra cars, covering university costs, etc, etc, etc? They had "won the game" by Bernstein's definition but the real world had other plans.
I am saying abstract because they are theoretical and haven't happened to you. A trait of the wealthy is they want to extend their sphere of influence. It starts with immediate family, then extended, then philanthropy etc. These are all fine traits but not directly related to your own retirement. The same thing happens with financial planners, the really big numbers of compounding is generational and starts after you are close to death so they aren't very accurate for an individual. I am expressing that if you accept a limited sphere of influence the numbers look very different.

I paid for my son's education, helped with his wedding and will probably gift some over the years but I'm done as far as feeling any financial obligation to him. I of course continue to have an emotional obligation.
Last edited by bradshaw1965 on Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by watchnerd »

deikel wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:35 pm
If the usual consensus is that 4% is a safe withdrawal, OP suggests 3% real would be winning and your definition is 0% real is winning, then we are in a new territory of conservative.
I think you're mixing up nominal and real.

And mixing a withdrawal rate with a total return.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Wrench
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:21 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Wrench »

almostretired1965 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:43 pm
watchnerd wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:05 am
almostretired1965 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:25 pm Instead, I just plan to make sure the bond portion of my portfolio does not drop below say 15-20x expenses. At the moment, this implies a maximum stock/bond allocation of around 80/20, which coincidentally is roughly where I am.
So your portfolio is 100x? :beer

Or is the 80% the bond.....? :sharebeer
It is 100x. As my DW noted shortly after we started going out, I'm a cheap date .....
At some point, the x is meaningless. Does Warren Buffet need to worry about whether his portfolio is 1000x or 100000x? In my case, my investable portfolio is effectively 10^6 x because I can comfortably live off social security and annuities. I don't need to withdraw a dime from my portfolio, and in fact, may even increase its balance through savings of money I don't spend from the income I receive. So does that mean I have a negative x if I add money to the portfolio every year in retirement? :happy

Wrench
bltn
Posts: 1844
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:32 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by bltn »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?

I guess if one has an idea of what x is, and is convinced that it's accurate, one can then believe that a proportion between asset classes can be determined in some rational way. I will sit in the back with the bozos and stick to my plan: $3M+ in safe assets, the rest in equities, and figure out withdrawals as our life unfolds.
I think having a safe asset fund to cover expenses in the foreseeable future, and a growth fund to be tapped for expenses when or if needed is a good way to organize ones finances.

I am one who has estimated our retirement security based on ?x. I defined x as the expenses ,including taxes and medical, for the year prior to retirement including a modest amount set aside for contingencies. X is then adjusted for inflation yearly. I have little idea how much we will be spending 10 years from now relative to our remaining nest egg. But by making the ? number conservative at the outset, we have some buffer against future events. Should our withdrawals need to be decreased, we ll simply have to do it.
BH+
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:15 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by BH+ »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 am Once again, I am amazed at the BH posters who can say that they are 15x, 33x, 25x, etc. Am I the only bozo on the bus who doesn't have a sufficiently clear idea of what x is to decide how many of them I have?

I can pretty well guess what our spend will be next year. I have some idea of the year after that and maybe one more year. What we will spend 10 years from now, or even if I will be alive, who knows?...
The part that is hard to nail is the projected returns. It could be all over the place for a substantially long time period.

The expense variable, in my opinion, is more predictable. This is to a large extent so because one has a lot of control over it. I can think of a multitude of ways to increase or decrease my expenses on housing, travel, entertainment, etc.
Orange_Philosophy
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:37 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Orange_Philosophy »

This seems to have gotten really complicated! The question, to me, is really simple.

Won the game and stop playing is where I can cover ALL of my expenses down to things like care for dogs, eating out a fixed number of times per month, cable, mobile phone, etc. Add to that some amount I feel like I can live with for the rest of my life as "play" money. This includes 18 months of cash-equivalent on hand to ride out a short-term drop. My numbers include a 4% average annual rate of return from a 3-fund-ish portfolio and a *max* 4% withdrawal each year. I don't compare real vs. nominal because my spreadsheet figures in 3% inflation on the expense side and returns fixed at 4% annually. Obviously I go upside-down eventually. I run the projections to 95 years old to be conservative. I want to have $5K/month discretionary which means I need $2.5M total investments (not counting house). The day I reach this goal... I'm pulling the rip cord. I'm about 3-4 years out with conservative rates of return and investment levels I'm currently at.

There are hundreds of variables, what-ifs, possible scenarios, changes in tax law, changes in healthcare law, and so on. I can't control any of them. All I can do is put myself in a good position, pull the cord, and hope my chute carries me to the finish line.
deikel
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by deikel »

watchnerd wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:53 pm
deikel wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:35 pm
If the usual consensus is that 4% is a safe withdrawal, OP suggests 3% real would be winning and your definition is 0% real is winning, then we are in a new territory of conservative.
I think you're mixing up nominal and real.

And mixing a withdrawal rate with a total return.
I don't think so.

Safe Withdrawal rate of 4% assumes that (on average) there is a real return above inflation, an average inflation of 3-4 % and an average real return of 4-5% (annualized, inflation adjusted, dividends in true CAGR 7%)

OP was asking if a real return of 3% was 'winning the game' (3% return plus inflation, presumably the 3% withdrawn)

and Tomato chimed in suggesting 0% real is 'winning the game' which would mean you can withdraw without any true gains, just inflation adjusted portfolio

which is consecutively more conservative (nothing wrong per se), BUT usually means that it needs you more working years to get to such comfy place - which I would define as actually loosing the game, because you traded in life time hours for an unnecessary safety net.

4% withdrawal a la Bengen already was conservative in the first place
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by watchnerd »

deikel wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:47 pm
I don't think so.

Safe Withdrawal rate of 4% assumes that (on average) there is a real return above inflation, an average inflation of 3-4 % and an average real return of 4-5% (annualized, inflation adjusted, dividends in true CAGR 7%)

OP was asking if a real return of 3% was 'winning the game' (3% return plus inflation, presumably the 3% withdrawn)

and Tomato chimed in suggesting 0% real is 'winning the game' which would mean you can withdraw without any true gains, just inflation adjusted portfolio

which is consecutively more conservative (nothing wrong per se), BUT usually means that it needs you more working years to get to such comfy place - which I would define as actually loosing the game, because you traded in life time hours for an unnecessary safety net.

4% withdrawal a la Bengen already was conservative in the first place
So your point is:

You disagree with Tomato's assertion that 'just inflation adjusted portfolio" is the definition of "winning the game".

Whether you disagree with it or not, Tomato's POV seems directionally consistent with Bernstein's framing.

When Bernstein says take 20-25X (or more if younger) and put it into something like a TIPS ladder to make your LMP -- he is basically saying you can mostly do without any true gains / just keep up with inflation for anything except discretionary spending.

This seems roughly aligned with Tomato's statement.

Yes, it's more conservative -- LMP / "Safety First" approaches are more conservative than Probabilistic portfolios.
deikel wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:47 pm which I would define as actually loosing the game, because you traded in life time hours for an unnecessary safety net.
As for "trading in life time hours for an unnecessary safety net":

Some of us enjoy our work, are passionate about it, and it gives us a sense of purpose and fulfillment.

Bernstein, being a doctor, might have felt the same.

I'm in the business world. Many my business heroes kept working well past when they could have just quit, for financial reasons, but they were passionate.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
an_asker
Posts: 4903
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by an_asker »

watchnerd wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:57 pm
deikel wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:47 pm [...]
OP was asking if a real return of 3% was 'winning the game' (3% return plus inflation, presumably the 3% withdrawn)

and Tomato chimed in suggesting 0% real is 'winning the game' which would mean you can withdraw without any true gains, just inflation adjusted portfolio

which is consecutively more conservative (nothing wrong per se), BUT usually means that it needs you more working years to get to such comfy place - which I would define as actually loosing the game, because you traded in life time hours for an unnecessary safety net.

4% withdrawal a la Bengen already was conservative in the first place
So your point is:

You disagree with Tomato's assertion that 'just inflation adjusted portfolio" is the definition of "winning the game".

Whether you disagree with it or not, Tomato's POV seems directionally consistent with Bernstein's framing.

When Bernstein says take 20-25X (or more if younger) and put it into something like a TIPS ladder to make your LMP -- he is basically saying you can mostly do without any true gains / just keep up with inflation for anything except discretionary spending.

This seems roughly aligned with Tomato's statement.

Yes, it's more conservative -- LMP / "Safety First" approaches are more conservative than Probabilistic portfolios.
[...]
I am also confused about the term "winning the game." Sharing an arbitrary example here. At 45, the OP of this thread is retired - but has he/she won the game or not? If he/she has won the game, is that person's portfolio overkill, i.e. he/she has won the game but is still continuing to play?
Wanderingwheelz
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:52 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by Wanderingwheelz »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:23 am
H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
Guilty. But, if we save a good percentage of our income, what’s the upside of a budget? It might be different for us in that x isn’t out of control; it’s just that I don’t know what the long term x is.
As I become more affluent (aren’t we all these days?) I feel like for the first time ever I probably need a budget because it’s the only way I’ll spend enough money. If I don’t set a specific amount aside for travel a year then I likely won’t use all of it, for example. Am I the only one out there who feel this way? I do want to enjoy the fruits of my labor, rather than just watching account values moon, although there’s nothing wrong with that.

To me that’s the upside of a budget, one I’ve never needed before. Many of us here are natural savers far more than we are spenders. It’s hard to make the transition.
Being wrong compounds forever.
smitcat
Posts: 13300
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by smitcat »

Wanderingwheelz wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:36 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:23 am
H-Town wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:05 am And yet I see many long time posters said that they don't need a budget, don't care for, or will never do a budget. What happens to control what you can control? If you don't track your spending, don't be surprised that the x got out of control.
Guilty. But, if we save a good percentage of our income, what’s the upside of a budget? It might be different for us in that x isn’t out of control; it’s just that I don’t know what the long term x is.
As I become more affluent (aren’t we all these days?) I feel like for the first time ever I probably need a budget because it’s the only way I’ll spend enough money. If I don’t set a specific amount aside for travel a year then I likely won’t use all of it, for example. Am I the only one out there who feel this way? I do want to enjoy the fruits of my labor, rather than just watching account values moon, although there’s nothing wrong with that.

To me that’s the upside of a budget, one I’ve never needed before. Many of us here are natural savers far more than we are spenders. It’s hard to make the transition.
"I feel like for the first time ever I probably need a budget because it’s the only way I’ll spend enough money. If I don’t set a specific amount aside for travel a year then I likely won’t use all of it, for example"
If you are already living life the way you want to there is no reason to force yourself to spend more.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Wanderingwheelz wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 7:36 am To me that’s the upside of a budget, one I’ve never needed before. Many of us here are natural savers far more than we are spenders. It’s hard to make the transition.
Haha yeah, I get that. I did find a solution. Buy a large stone house on lots of land. You’ll discover what the term “repointing” means. You’ll discover what “deferred maintenance” means. You’ll discover that the only thing stone insulates against is WiFi signals. You’ll discover that a wildflower meadow doesn’t spring up magically if you just stop fertilizing a lawn. And many more discoveries.

After we get the house to our preferences, maybe I’ll need a budget, but with our vaccines now travel might take the place of home improvement. :beer
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by willthrill81 »

If we (i.e., our family) plan to spend above the median household income in retirement with a paid-off home and no debt, that spending will be funded from a portfolio with reasonably conservative assumptions in accordance with the amortization based withdrawal method, and we have the backstop of SS benefits, which should cover all essential spending beginning at age 70, I'll very likely pull the plug on trading my time for money. That's 'won enough' for me. We come up with endless scenarios, some imagined and some that we've witnessed others experience, that might derail our plans, but there is no absolute certainty about such matters. 3% withdrawals could fail, so could 2%, etc. Your expenses could balloon in retirement for any number of reasons. The global stock market could collapse. And so on. As such, it's incumbent on everyone to find for themselves the best time to retire, given the entirety of their own personal circumstances as well as those of the market.

All roads carry risk.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by watchnerd »

willthrill81 wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:30 am If we (i.e., our family) plan to spend above the median household income in retirement with a paid-off home and no debt, that spending will be funded from a portfolio with reasonably conservative assumptions in accordance with the amortization based withdrawal method, and we have the backstop of SS benefits, which should cover all essential spending beginning at age 70, I'll very likely pull the plug on trading my time for money. That's 'won enough' for me. We come up with endless scenarios, some imagined and some that we've witnessed others experience, that might derail our plans, but there is no absolute certainty about such matters. 3% withdrawals could fail, so could 2%, etc. Your expenses could balloon in retirement for any number of reasons. The global stock market could collapse. And so on. As such, it's incumbent on everyone to find for themselves the best time to retire, given the entirety of their own personal circumstances as well as those of the market.

All roads carry risk.
I'm starting to transition to that stage now.

The LMP ladder taking me all the way to full SS is nearly complete -- I just have to wait for two more future TIPS auctions.

Once that's done, everything leftover will just become part of the Risk Portfolio, allocated to one of the GMP AA variations:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... g_/pubhtml#

Then spend more free time on other stuff in life.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
AK62
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: What does "won the game stop playing" mean in practice?

Post by AK62 »

The catchy phrase "if you've won the game stop playing" is exactly that.... a catchy phrase to grab attention, to summarize a point. Don't read too deeply into the catchy phrase. Songwriters spend their careers writing catchy phrases in their lyrics. Poets write catchy phrases. Many of us don't even know exactly what goes on behind all of these catchy phrases, so don't try to look too deeply into analyzing every word. It's just a catchy phrase that's meant to grab attention and cause you pause and to think. Like many catchy phrases out there in our world, this is a great one. It certainly made me pause and think. Don't look too deep for the root of the meaning, but in general appreciate the way it was written. For me, this catchy phrase made me look closer at my finances, my goals, and to see where I am in the accumulation phase, where I am with my goals, and ultimately, as I have landed my goals, that I should move from accumulation phase to preservation phase and reduce risk in my investment portfolio. However, I don't intend to ever get out of the market, just add a little more protective gear so I don't get hurt with any curve balls.
Post Reply