How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
MnD
Posts: 5195
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:41 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by MnD »

lostdog wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:10 pm
MnD wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:57 am 5% of annual portfolio balance with threshold rebalancing and proportional to AA withdrawals.
All needs and some wants are covered by pension.
Both of our SS claims (one above average and one maxed out) are still in the future and will backfill nicely if a poor sequence of returns actually emerges and crimps income from portfolio under a % of portfolio balance approach.

FYI - Bolted on buckets of cash strategy is a suboptimal approach and increases the risk of portfolio failure.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3274499
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-bu ... 2019-02-12
Hi MnD,

If you didn't have the pension, would your AA be different and would you still use 5% of annual portfolio balance?
Yes I would. Definitely 5%. Perhaps 60/40 versus 70/30.
The big difference is that I would have worked 6 years longer (62 versus 56) with a presumably higher portfolio balance, fewer years of retirement to fund and access at retirement to one of our two SS revenue streams.
70/30 AA for life, Global market cap equity. Rebalance if fixed income <25% or >35%. Weighted ER< .10%. 5% of annual portfolio balance SWR, Proportional (to AA) withdrawals.
lostdog
Posts: 5368
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by lostdog »

MnD wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:38 am
lostdog wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:10 pm
MnD wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:57 am 5% of annual portfolio balance with threshold rebalancing and proportional to AA withdrawals.
All needs and some wants are covered by pension.
Both of our SS claims (one above average and one maxed out) are still in the future and will backfill nicely if a poor sequence of returns actually emerges and crimps income from portfolio under a % of portfolio balance approach.

FYI - Bolted on buckets of cash strategy is a suboptimal approach and increases the risk of portfolio failure.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3274499
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-bu ... 2019-02-12
Hi MnD,

If you didn't have the pension, would your AA be different and would you still use 5% of annual portfolio balance?
Yes I would. Definitely 5%. Perhaps 60/40 versus 70/30.
The big difference is that I would have worked 6 years longer (62 versus 56) with a presumably higher portfolio balance, fewer years of retirement to fund and access at retirement to one of our two SS revenue streams.
Makes sense.

Thanks for your reply.
Stocks-80% || Bonds-20% || Taxable-VTI/VXUS || IRA-VT/BNDW
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by willthrill81 »

For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
The Sensible Steward
MnD
Posts: 5195
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:41 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by MnD »

HomerJ wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:17 pm
MnD wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:57 am All needs and some wants are covered by pension.
That, of course, changes everything.
of our SS claims (one above average and one maxed out) are still in the future
And you haven't even claimed SS yet.

Yeah, you can pull 5% or really whatever you want from the portfolio.
It wasn't just a "whatever" number. For the median 35 year historical sequence of returns, 5% of portfolio balance with a 3% inflation-adjusted floor has a real ending value about equal to what one started with and a risk of outright portfolio failure equal to that of a 3.3% inflation adjusted SWR.

We have great utility for the additional income provided by 5% of portfolio balance under all but terrible sequence of returns, versus guaranteeing a lousy level of income from a given portfolio value that people lock in by selecting an ultra-conservative SWR.

the pension isn't large but true needs are tiny because in good Boglehead fashion everything is paid off, no more big tax bills or big expenses for saving for retirement, kids are out and off the bank of Mom and Dad. I read all the time here about retired people who cover all needs with their other income streams including some that then select 0% SWR. That's not for us. 3 years retired we've received $115K in additional income by using a variable income from portfolio versus 3% inflation-adjusted SWR. It will be $170K more cumulatively by the end of 2022. If a horrific SOR emerges, we'll end up with a similiar income stream from portfolio to the ultra-conservative SWR folks, but only IF that sequence emerges. I'm also not wedded to the 3% floor because our SS claims could just as easily backfill versus holding to a floor.
70/30 AA for life, Global market cap equity. Rebalance if fixed income <25% or >35%. Weighted ER< .10%. 5% of annual portfolio balance SWR, Proportional (to AA) withdrawals.
seajay
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by seajay »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by willthrill81 »

seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
Ben Mathew
Posts: 2720
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Location: Seattle

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Ben Mathew »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
Total Portfolio Allocation and Withdrawal (TPAW)
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by willthrill81 »

Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.
Yes, this approach has some similarities to the LMP+RP approach, but it doesn't call for bonds to be used exclusively for the essential spending portfolio. A balanced portfolio with something like a 3-4% SWR could be used, for instance, and it wouldn't sacrifice upside potential the way that a TIPS/I bonds ladder does. But I believe that the real value for many in this approach could be the acknowledgement that front-loading withdrawals for discretionary spending makes sense for the lion's share of retirees who can fund their essential spending well (e.g., from SS benefits, the essential spending portfolio, etc.). Planning on a high level of flat or even increasing inflation-adjusted spending throughout retirement, which many here do, makes no sense at all to me apart from some very unusual circumstances.
The Sensible Steward
SnowBog
Posts: 4700
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by SnowBog »

Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
As noted above, I'm using a mix of EE & I Bonds as a bridge to social security. For the most part, this is part of our 60/40 AA (with the current value of I and EE bonds part of the 40%). But for modeling tools that support it, I actually remove the EE Bonds from the portfolio and treat them as a term limited annuity (or no-Cola pension).

Where I might differ is we don't plan to rebalance back to 60/40 as we redeem the bonds. As previously noted, we plan to shift our AA more stock heavy as we pass the initial retirement years and get to where we have pensions and social security covering most expenses. This should see a shift of somewhere between 5 - 15% (depending on portfolio growth) just from redeeming the I & EE Bonds.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by dbr »

I would think that logically LMP type holdings are in fact income streams and not investments and would be treated as such. A difference between that and life annuities is that the income ends at some point, but it is like a term annuity,
SnowBog
Posts: 4700
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by SnowBog »

dbr wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:10 pm I would think that logically LMP type holdings are in fact income streams and not investments and would be treated as such. A difference between that and life annuities is that the income ends at some point, but it is like a term annuity,
For myself, the answer is "sort of"...

Where I can, I treat EE Bonds as annuities/income stream. But not all tools support this approach.

I do similar for I Bonds in our home grown model, but haven't attempted to do so in any other tool since it's not as clean of setup for us (our plan varies between 3 - 4.5 $10k bonds redeemed each year).

But too few modeling tools allow this (a time limited income stream), or don't allow enough inputs (like Firecalc) to model everything they way you'd like.
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15363
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Northern Flicker »

dbr wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:10 pm I would think that logically LMP type holdings are in fact income streams and not investments and would be treated as such. A difference between that and life annuities is that the income ends at some point, but it is like a term annuity,
Yes. It is less expensive to cover an income floor with a SPIA because fewer years need to be funded.
User avatar
Ben Mathew
Posts: 2720
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Location: Seattle

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Ben Mathew »

dbr wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:10 pm I would think that logically LMP type holdings are in fact income streams and not investments and would be treated as such. A difference between that and life annuities is that the income ends at some point, but it is like a term annuity,
Withdrawing from a portfolio converts the portfolio into an income stream. A safe portfolio can be converted to a safe income stream. A risky portfolio can be converted to a risky income stream.

An LMP is simply a safe portfolio that can be converted to a safe income stream. I still view it as an investment. Just a very safe one.
Total Portfolio Allocation and Withdrawal (TPAW)
bigskyguy
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by bigskyguy »

We indeed have a LMP/RP retirement portfolio. Our LMP is entirely TIPS (2021-44), with a quantum of I-bonds held in reserve with a plan to annuitize them starting in 2045. Coupled with SS these cover our essential expenses with a 20% buffer (no question expensive snd conservative but remarkably reassuring). 75% of our retirement funds are held here.
The remaining 25% is held in Dimensional Core 2 ETFS (2/3 DFAC, 1/3 DFAX). This is our risk portfolio which will fund big trips, charitable giving, and truly unexpected expenses.
These portfolios are entirely separate, and do not interact. I see no need for rebalancing or for any funding crossover.
We are both retired (ages 72/62), and carry no debt of any form.
latesaver
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:35 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by latesaver »

livesoft wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:43 am
Marseille07 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:36 pm All of them are a form of #1, and that's basically the only answer.

You can do whatever you want to effectively achieve #1.
Exactly. Just start with a lot more money and forget about it.
This is my strategy. i acknowledge it is a luxury...i am only 42 yrs old and have 50x expenses saved up based on my current lifestyle. i could walk away now, but i am going to keep working until it makes sense for me not to work any longer. as my numerator (my savings) grows, i'll mentally increase my denominator (spending) so that i can have a boat, fly first class, etc.

like i said, it's a luxury...but, i will retire with 50x expenses. Allocation will be something around 60-70% equities and the balance in fixed income. whether i have some % in int'l equities, some % in TIPs vs US bonds vs Int'l bonds vs I or EE bonds, who cares. If that is what results in cat food vs filet mignon, something much worse happened.
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 4032
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by 22twain »

MrCheapo wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:57 pm This article https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehopki ... e41ab727eb states four main strategies:

1) Limit Withdrawal Rate (i.e. drop down to 2.5%)
2) Home Equity (i.e. borrow against capital if market turns down)
3) Income Laddering (i.e. bond laddering)
4) Cash Reserve Bucketing Strategy (i.e. set aside two years of expenses a priori and if market drops use it)
We use basically #1, except that our spending rate is less than 2% of our assets. We also have a conservative asset allocation, about 40% stock between the two of us, which will soften any downturns in the stock market. Finally, both of us delayed or are delaying collecting Social Security until 70. When both of us are collecting, two years from now, SS will cover all our current expenses. Our withdrawals from assets will drop to zero except for major one-off expenses such as a new roof or car, or splurges.
Meet my pet, Peeve, who loves to convert non-acronyms into acronyms: FED, ROTH, CASH, IVY, ...
wrongfunds
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by wrongfunds »

HomerJ wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:51 pm Just have a bunch in bonds\cash, and spend from that pool if the market crashes until the market comes back.

This is such an easy concept, I don't understand why people have trouble with it.

I mean we can argue about HOW MUCH to have in bonds\cash, but the idea is just to not sell stocks when they are down.
That is NOT true at all :-( The idea is to to buy stocks when they are down by spending your non-stock assets.

Now, that part will NOT be easy when there is blood all around you.
wrongfunds
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by wrongfunds »

livesoft wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:43 am
Marseille07 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:36 pm All of them are a form of #1, and that's basically the only answer.

You can do whatever you want to effectively achieve #1.
Exactly. Just start with a lot more money and forget about it.
OMY is the only sure fire way of eliminating SOR. Ask few people in this forum about it.
sailaway
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by sailaway »

wrongfunds wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:24 am
livesoft wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:43 am
Marseille07 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:36 pm All of them are a form of #1, and that's basically the only answer.

You can do whatever you want to effectively achieve #1.
Exactly. Just start with a lot more money and forget about it.
OMY is the only sure fire way of eliminating SOR. Ask few people in this forum about it.
I have been saying for years that we should work as far into the next recession as Megacorp would have DH. 3MY later, I feel the SORR has been mitigated, but not necessarily eliminated. And that is with a ~2x savings rate.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 6009
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by CyclingDuo »

Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
That's what we do - both by keeping separate portfolios for legacy goals as well as the AA within those portfolios - which is not the allocation we use for the future we spend/our spend portfolio that will cover our retirement. More or less a hard barrier built in via both the physical location of the assets as well as the mental barrier of that money being they spend investments, and not we spend/our spend money.

Could it all be under one roof and still mentally divided up as well as the chosen AA? Sure. We just went with the physical barrier aspect as it appears on paper as nice and tidy when it comes to separation. We did a similar thing with our children when they were born setting up UTMAs which were the college education/they spend accounts and separate from ours - both physically and AA wise. Once college was over and they reached the required age, the accounts were converted to individual brokerage accounts for each child and turned over to them. The physical barrier as well as mental barrier of it always being they spend money worked out so well for us execution wise, that doing the same now for legacy doesn't seem so new or strange to us.

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel | "Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Freefun
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Freefun »

I knew I’d be tempted to play around with my asset allocation and that’s exactly why I decided to put a lot of money in lifestrategy funds.

Have a cash +FI buffer.

LBYM.
Remember when you wanted what you currently have?
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by willthrill81 »

CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:19 am
Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
That's what we do - both by keeping separate portfolios for legacy goals as well as the AA within those portfolios - which is not the allocation we use for the future we spend/our spend portfolio that will cover our retirement. More or less a hard barrier built in via both the physical location of the assets as well as the mental barrier of that money being they spend investments, and not we spend/our spend money.

Could it all be under one roof and still mentally divided up as well as the chosen AA? Sure. We just went with the physical barrier aspect as it appears on paper as nice and tidy when it comes to separation. We did a similar thing with our children when they were born setting up UTMAs which were the college education/they spend accounts and separate from ours - both physically and AA wise. Once college was over and they reached the required age, the accounts were converted to individual brokerage accounts for each child and turned over to them. The physical barrier as well as mental barrier of it always being they spend money worked out so well for us execution wise, that doing the same now for legacy doesn't seem so new or strange to us.

CyclingDuo
Some such portfolio 'barriers' can be little more than mental accounting, but that is not always the case. If there will be no rebalancing between the two portfolios, for instance, then it is not mental accounting. Another example of 'hard' or 'physical' barriers between multiple portfolios is used in McClung's Prime Harvesting approach, where stocks may be sold to buy bonds but not the other way around.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
Ben Mathew
Posts: 2720
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Location: Seattle

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Ben Mathew »

CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:19 am
Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
That's what we do - both by keeping separate portfolios for legacy goals as well as the AA within those portfolios - which is not the allocation we use for the future we spend/our spend portfolio that will cover our retirement. More or less a hard barrier built in via both the physical location of the assets as well as the mental barrier of that money being they spend investments, and not we spend/our spend money.

Could it all be under one roof and still mentally divided up as well as the chosen AA? Sure. We just went with the physical barrier aspect as it appears on paper as nice and tidy when it comes to separation. We did a similar thing with our children when they were born setting up UTMAs which were the college education/they spend accounts and separate from ours - both physically and AA wise. Once college was over and they reached the required age, the accounts were converted to individual brokerage accounts for each child and turned over to them. The physical barrier as well as mental barrier of it always being they spend money worked out so well for us execution wise, that doing the same now for legacy doesn't seem so new or strange to us.

CyclingDuo
That makes sense. Interesting to see someone explicitly use a separate portfolio for legacy. I assume the legacy AA is riskier than retirement spending AA?
Total Portfolio Allocation and Withdrawal (TPAW)
User avatar
Ben Mathew
Posts: 2720
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Location: Seattle

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Ben Mathew »

willthrill81 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:06 am Some such portfolio 'barriers' can be little more than mental accounting, but that is not always the case. If there will be no rebalancing between the two portfolios, for instance, then it is not mental accounting.
Yes, multiple portfolios become more than mental accounting buckets when they have separate rebalancing targets.
Total Portfolio Allocation and Withdrawal (TPAW)
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by goodenyou »

Having a very low withdrawal rate from a conservative 50/50 (25% bonds and 25% cash) portfolio. We continue to work at jobs that are tolerable, and we are at our highest level of earnings. We are both mid 50s and we are fortunate to save more than we spend every year. Working longer with a larger portfolio is our antidote to the effects of SORR.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 6009
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by CyclingDuo »

Ben Mathew wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:42 am
CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:19 am
Ben Mathew wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
People who have an LMP or a bond bridge to Social Security effectively have a separate portfolio with an AA of 0/100 on the LMP/bridge and a riskier AA on the remaining discretionary portfolio. But I haven't heard anyone saying they've formally implemented a multiple portfolio approach with an AA different from 0/100 on the safe portfolio. Would be interesting to hear from people if they are doing this. It can make sense for some people.

Applying a different AA to funds supporting legacy goals would be another example of the multiple portfolio approach. I've heard a bit more talk about that.
That's what we do - both by keeping separate portfolios for legacy goals as well as the AA within those portfolios - which is not the allocation we use for the future we spend/our spend portfolio that will cover our retirement. More or less a hard barrier built in via both the physical location of the assets as well as the mental barrier of that money being they spend investments, and not we spend/our spend money.

Could it all be under one roof and still mentally divided up as well as the chosen AA? Sure. We just went with the physical barrier aspect as it appears on paper as nice and tidy when it comes to separation. We did a similar thing with our children when they were born setting up UTMAs which were the college education/they spend accounts and separate from ours - both physically and AA wise. Once college was over and they reached the required age, the accounts were converted to individual brokerage accounts for each child and turned over to them. The physical barrier as well as mental barrier of it always being they spend money worked out so well for us execution wise, that doing the same now for legacy doesn't seem so new or strange to us.

CyclingDuo
That makes sense. Interesting to see someone explicitly use a separate portfolio for legacy. I assume the legacy AA is riskier than retirement spending AA?
Yes, based on two to three decades of planned growth before we both expire the legacy accounts are heavy on the equity allocation.

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel | "Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by surfstar »

The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by Marseille07 »

surfstar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 am The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Have a number and start winding down as soon as you hit it. That's my plan anyway.
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by randomguy »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:15 am
surfstar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 am The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Have a number and start winding down as soon as you hit it. That's my plan anyway.
It is sort of the best we can do but the reality is that you will still be working too long. The odds are you could have had a 40 year retirement with a 5% SWR. But you can't really take the risk of having an average outcome. You need to plan for the worst and work another 5 years to get a 35 year and a 3.5% SWR.

Of course the other way is not to trade your years for money by doing something you would pay to be doing. You may or may not have find it easy to generate income from things you enjoy but there are plenty of people who work for free because it enriches their life. If they were getting paid for that same work, the enrichment really wouldn't go away...
Topic Author
MrCheapo
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:43 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by MrCheapo »

22twain wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:22 am
MrCheapo wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:57 pm This article https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehopki ... e41ab727eb states four main strategies:

1) Limit Withdrawal Rate (i.e. drop down to 2.5%)
2) Home Equity (i.e. borrow against capital if market turns down)
3) Income Laddering (i.e. bond laddering)
4) Cash Reserve Bucketing Strategy (i.e. set aside two years of expenses a priori and if market drops use it)
We use basically #1, except that our spending rate is less than 2% of our assets. We also have a conservative asset allocation, about 40% stock between the two of us, which will soften any downturns in the stock market. Finally, both of us delayed or are delaying collecting Social Security until 70. When both of us are collecting, two years from now, SS will cover all our current expenses. Our withdrawals from assets will drop to zero except for major one-off expenses such as a new roof or car, or splurges.
Interesting. So we will be in a similar situation (except its pensions not SS which will cover our living expenses). So how are you changing your AA when that happens? One could argue that's a good situation so go to 100% equities.
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by goodenyou »

surfstar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 am The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Flex retirement. Working is a lot more tolerable/enjoyable when you know you don’t have to. I am self-employed and I can work as much as I want to. I am compensated enough to make it worth my effort, but it is declining by the year. My wife is highly compensated in a job she enjoys, and we want to retire at the same time. In the mean time, we save more and have the liberty to spend more without worrying about accumulation.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
SnowBog
Posts: 4700
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by SnowBog »

goodenyou wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:19 pm
surfstar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 am The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Flex retirement. Working is a lot more tolerable/enjoyable when you know you don’t have to. I am self-employed and I can work as much as I want to. I am compensated enough to make it worth my effort, but it is declining by the year. My wife is highly compensated in a job she enjoys, and we want to retire at the same time. In the mean time, we save more and have the liberty to spend more without worrying about accumulation.
Out of curiosity, have you been self employed for a while? Or did you transition it at as part of your "flex retirement"?

I've thought about doing the latter - but it sounds like "too much work" for me (transitioning from a W2 employee without)...
User avatar
AnnetteLouisan
Posts: 7263
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:16 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by AnnetteLouisan »

vectorizer wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:26 am I bought ten-year treasury bond ladder that covers normal yearly discretionary and non-discretionary spending in retirement; bond amounts drop after planned start of social security (at 70). So mostly I don't sweat market drops. Still exposed though when fund portfolio withdrawals are needed for large lumpy expenses like major house repairs or car replacement. It's a compromise that gives me confidence.
Series EE? I’m still on the fence. At 54 if I buy 20 year bonds over 10 years I get tax deferred 3.54 percent growth from 74-84. But if I cash out early all I get is my original investment back (which is more than some other investments can say).
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by goodenyou »

SnowBog wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:19 pm
goodenyou wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:19 pm
surfstar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 am The true question (to me) is how to mitigate Working Too Long risk?

Very hard to do when you don't know when you'll die, how your health will hold up, etc. We're all trading our youngest years of life for money. Irks me every day :D
Flex retirement. Working is a lot more tolerable/enjoyable when you know you don’t have to. I am self-employed and I can work as much as I want to. I am compensated enough to make it worth my effort, but it is declining by the year. My wife is highly compensated in a job she enjoys, and we want to retire at the same time. In the mean time, we save more and have the liberty to spend more without worrying about accumulation.
Out of curiosity, have you been self employed for a while? Or did you transition it at as part of your "flex retirement"?

I've thought about doing the latter - but it sounds like "too much work" for me (transitioning from a W2 employee without)...
I have been self-employed for my entire career of 26 years. I am a sub-specialty surgeon and I am in a group practice. I essentially have my own practice with limits. I have a significant cost of overhead that has to be met each month, and the rest is "profit". The difficulty is determining how much profit is worth the amount of work just to pay the overhead. If I have to work more days to pay the bills (and costs are going up and reimbursement going down), then I have less days of profit if I want to take time off. At some point, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. My wife returned to the workforce after being a SAHM. She is highly compensated with great benefits in a MegaCorp. She will stay employed for many years at her level of workload and compensation unless I call it quits.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 4032
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by 22twain »

MrCheapo wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:32 pm
22twain wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:22 am
MrCheapo wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:57 pm This article https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehopki ... e41ab727eb states four main strategies:

1) Limit Withdrawal Rate (i.e. drop down to 2.5%)
We use basically #1, except that our spending rate is less than 2% of our assets. We also have a conservative asset allocation, about 40% stock between the two of us, which will soften any downturns in the stock market. Finally, both of us delayed or are delaying collecting Social Security until 70. When both of us are collecting, two years from now, SS will cover all our current expenses. Our withdrawals from assets will drop to zero except for major one-off expenses such as a new roof or car, or splurges.
Interesting. So we will be in a similar situation (except its pensions not SS which will cover our living expenses). So how are you changing your AA when that happens? One could argue that's a good situation so go to 100% equities.
We have no kids or other close relatives. Our nearest relatives are a few cousins who are older than us. So we have no personal bequest motive. We'll probably move to a CCRC in the next ten years or so, which will increase our housing costs. Also, my wife's mother spent her last eight years (age 92-99) in a nursing home, so we want to have enough assets to cover that sort of end stage for at least one of us. There are organizations that we will be happy to leave our "remainders" to, but we're not striving to maximize that amount.

So we're basically letting our savings/investments ride.

Her assets are more conservative than mine, including a lot of taxable CDs. They're currently about 20% stock. She's taking RMDs from her 403(b) proportionally across all her sub-accounts. Her SS covers all her share of our expenses, so she saves the RMDs in CDs. She's never had a taxable brokerage account, nor is she interested in starting one. So her stock allocation is decreasing gradually.

I have a higher stock allocation, right now about 62%. I've let it drift upwards by not rebalancing out of stocks during the last few years, so as to counteract the decrease in my wife's stocks. When I start RMDs from my 403(b) in four years (under current law), I currently plan to take them all from the stock accounts, and reinvest them in total stock market ETFs in my taxable account.

So overall we should maintain at least the same stock allocation that we have now, but it will be mainly out of laziness. 8-)
Meet my pet, Peeve, who loves to convert non-acronyms into acronyms: FED, ROTH, CASH, IVY, ...
seajay
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by seajay »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:35 am
seajay wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:32 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am For years now, I have thought that creating 'buckets', one to cover essential spending and another to cover discretionary spending, with different withdrawal strategies and potentially different AAs could make sense for some retirees. The essential spending bucket could have a more conservative withdrawal and potentially investment strategy, and the discretionary spending bucket could be more aggressive in terms of both. Retirees might desire to largely or even entirely deplete the discretionary spending bucket by a certain age (e.g., 85), when discretionary spending seems to largely cease for most retirees anyway, the beginning of what Kitces refers to as the 'no-go' years.

While it's possible to use this approach with 'one portfolio', I believe that it might be easier for some to comprehend with the bucket approach.
Isn't that standard practice? Bogle as I understand it used 60/40 (or 50/50) for his retirement account but was more like 80/20 in his non-retirement account. Pensions/other income supplemented with a retirement account to match general spending, non-retirement account supplements that for other irregular fun/luxury withdrawals/spending.
It doesn't seem that this is standard around here at all. I think that many do something vaguely similar, at least implicitly, but I seldom see anyone putting a 'hard barrier' (i.e., no rebalancing) between two portfolios, one for their essential spending and another for their discretionary spending, with different withdrawal and/or investment strategies for both.
I recalled incorrectly ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colu ... LI20120911
Q: Can we assume you’re all in Vanguard funds?

A: One hundred percent. My personal, non-retirement accounts are about 80 percent bonds and 20 percent stocks, reflecting my old rule of thumb that your bond allocation should roughly equal your age. It’s spread across different bond funds, like the Vanguard Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt (VWITX). I’m a pretty conservative guy.

My retirement accounts are more like a 50-50 split between stocks and bonds
seajay
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by seajay »

MrCheapo wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:57 pm This article https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehopki ... e41ab727eb states four main strategies:

1) Limit Withdrawal Rate (i.e. drop down to 2.5%)
2) Home Equity (i.e. borrow against capital if market turns down)
3) Income Laddering (i.e. bond laddering)
4) Cash Reserve Bucketing Strategy (i.e. set aside two years of expenses a priori and if market drops use it)

Thoughts on which of these is better? Is there alternative options?

I didn't know the term but I'm effectively going with 4) by moving some of my 2050 targeted funds by moving 2 years of living expenses into a 2025 targeted fund. But going forward if interest rates stay low then borrowing against the equity in our home seems a better idea.
A common factor of 4% SWR failure rate are wars and single time-point entry. Three currencies, three assets, two-timepoint entry generally fixes that risk. Reducing to 3% SWR is pretty much a PWR (perpetual).

1907 for instance was a bad/worst start year for a UK investor ... subsequent cost of WW1 pretty much bankrupted the state. 1969 Vietnam war peak was a bad start year for a US retirement, President Nixon ended up de-coupling the $ from gold as a means to pay down the high cost of the war (whereas the UK was fine). Thirds each US stock, UK stock, Precious Metals, averaged into over a year (half at start of year, half at end), along with a 3% SWR (PWR) and generally you'd have done OK across both of those individual country risks. As might other choices of avoiding concentrated single country geopolitical risk exposure. Remain concentrated and it might not matter what assets you hold, stocks or bonds both enduring significant pain.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: How are People Mitigating Sequence of Return Risks?

Post by surfstar »

IMO, how are BHs mitigating SORR:

"The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=363766

BHs will over save and work longer than needed. SORR is just a theoretical discussion for 99% of Bogleheads.
Post Reply