Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:28 pm
Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Hello, I'm just looking for clarification on the 25x annual spending rule in order to fund retirement. I understand this is just a rough guideline, but I'm unclear about how inflation plays into this. For example, if I need $40,000 per year to live on, and I reach a point where I have $1,000,000 in my taxable account, can I safely retire, or would I need more that that to account for inflation? 20 years into this theoretical retirement, that 40k needed per year might become 50k or who knows how much. Am I on the right track here and if so, how do I calculate a FI number that includes inflation in it? Thank you!
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
It's 40K on 1M to start with, but each year you add CPI to it. We just saw CPI of 4.2%; so if you use this number then you're looking at 41.68K next year instead of 40K.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
The 4% guideline takes inflation into account; it is an inflation adjusted withdraw rate.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Your portfolio, unless it’s all in cash, should keep up with inflation so that’s implicit in the “rule”. Most projections are built upon a 60/40 stocks/bonds asset allocation, though yours may differ. Of course if you hold only cash you could be in trouble.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:28 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Got it. Thanks everybody!
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
You probably need at least 30% in stocks in your portfolio, preferably a bit more, in order for your portfolio to keep up with inflation.
A 10-20% allocation to gold has helped with the sequence of returns problem. Some gold held physically is also good insurance against the all-digital-assets problem.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
For me it's projected income minus projected expense.
That gives me an idea how long my nest egg will last.
Not sure why we forget the income part: ssa, pension, etc.
That gives me an idea how long my nest egg will last.
Not sure why we forget the income part: ssa, pension, etc.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I think you mean projected expenses minus projected income (Social Security, pensions, etc.) equals projected withdrawals from portfolio.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
No I meant exactly what I said. That's how you get projected withdrawals.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
As others have said, the 4% takes into account inflation. There is a catch though - and that it's based off of the trinity study (Bill Bengen's work), and it assumes a portfolio of at least 50% stocks, which for me would cause quite a bit of uncomfortable feelings with no human capital left. Bengen said, and recently confirmed, that any percentage of stock under 50% is suboptimal, and would begin to lower the optimal percentage to something less than that.coldweather wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 5:50 pm Hello, I'm just looking for clarification on the 25x annual spending rule in order to fund retirement. I understand this is just a rough guideline, but I'm unclear about how inflation plays into this. For example, if I need $40,000 per year to live on, and I reach a point where I have $1,000,000 in my taxable account, can I safely retire, or would I need more that that to account for inflation? 20 years into this theoretical retirement, that 40k needed per year might become 50k or who knows how much. Am I on the right track here and if so, how do I calculate a FI number that includes inflation in it? Thank you!
I won't go into the details, but there are ways to fine-tune those aforementioned issues; For instance, I plan to use a variable withdrawal method that intentionally, but gradually spends into principle, which will allow me to safely lower my equity percent to the ~ 30% range while still withdrawing near 4%. I prefer that over a perpetual method (such as constant percent method) having more volatility of a 50% or even higher equity percentage. To each his own, I guess. A couple of solid variable methods that do that are Boglehead VPW, or even just the vanilla RMD method.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Just to clarify for the OP, the "but gradually spends into principle" part might be confusing, since the traditional 4% SWR method does include the possibility of depleting or nearly depleting the original amount.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:22 am I won't go into the details, but there are ways to fine-tune those aforementioned issues; For instance, I plan to use a variable withdrawal method that intentionally, but gradually spends into principle, which will allow me to safely lower my equity percent to the ~ 30% range while still withdrawing near 4%. I prefer that over a perpetual method (such as constant percent method) having more volatility of a 50% or even higher equity percentage. To each his own, I guess. A couple of solid variable methods that do that are Boglehead VPW, or even just the vanilla RMD method.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Thanks for that clarification. Used properly (my opinion again), the 4% rule is only appropriate for getting an initial idea of how much you can withdraw through your retirement, given the assumptions of the rule. But actually using it as a system for retirement income, in the strictest sense, is pretty reckless. It's also known as the "constant dollar" method. So absolutely, it has a chance of running out prematurely, and if your stock percentage is high enough and with a bad enough market, that could be way sooner than you planned.tibbitts wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:39 amJust to clarify for the OP, the "but gradually spends into principle" part might be confusing, since the traditional 4% SWR method does include the possibility of depleting or nearly depleting the original amount.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:22 am I won't go into the details, but there are ways to fine-tune those aforementioned issues; For instance, I plan to use a variable withdrawal method that intentionally, but gradually spends into principle, which will allow me to safely lower my equity percent to the ~ 30% range while still withdrawing near 4%. I prefer that over a perpetual method (such as constant percent method) having more volatility of a 50% or even higher equity percentage. To each his own, I guess. A couple of solid variable methods that do that are Boglehead VPW, or even just the vanilla RMD method.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
While the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
Of course this is why someone like Paul Merriman recommends saving more than you need. If you need $40k/yr from your portfolio, have a $1.5mm portfolio. Then if the market does perform poorly, you can reduce your withdrawals while maintaining lifestyle, and in good times either ratchet up the fun or give money away. Of course, most people barely save “enough” let alone well more than enough.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
If 100% is your standard then I suppose you consider driving to be reckless too? If your standard for "reckless" if out of step with everyone, fine, but it sounded like you had some complaint about how the 4% rule works in practice that doesn't align with the success rates reported in the studies.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:24 amWhile the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
A more generalized thought process for this that I think more clearly represents the dynamics of holding portfolios with contributions or withdrawals is that there is no useful concept of principal. Rather the parameters are the portfolio value at any time and how it varies over time. The arithmetic is very simple as it is just that the evolution to the next portfolio value is the old portfolio value plus the gain from return plus the contributions minus the withdrawals. Then you compound that over time. Part of the importance of this model is that it naturally incorporates the standard definition of return without getting confused over principal vs earnings vs capital gains vs dividends, etc. The data sets on investment performance, past or estimated are in terms of return and that is for a reason, namely simplicity, completeness, and clarity of thought process.tibbitts wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:39 amJust to clarify for the OP, the "but gradually spends into principle" part might be confusing, since the traditional 4% SWR method does include the possibility of depleting or nearly depleting the original amount.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:22 am I won't go into the details, but there are ways to fine-tune those aforementioned issues; For instance, I plan to use a variable withdrawal method that intentionally, but gradually spends into principle, which will allow me to safely lower my equity percent to the ~ 30% range while still withdrawing near 4%. I prefer that over a perpetual method (such as constant percent method) having more volatility of a 50% or even higher equity percentage. To each his own, I guess. A couple of solid variable methods that do that are Boglehead VPW, or even just the vanilla RMD method.
If a person is concerned whether not the past or estimated future value of the portfolio ever becomes less than the starting value, that result drops right out of the analysis immediately. In that regard it is rational to compute all of this in real dollars. The idea that one has "not invaded principal" when the nominal value but not the real value is maintained seems not useful for most cases. Another fallacy is to value the holding in "shares" while deciding to ignore the value of those shares. While there can be some psychological advantage to that there are lots of ways that doing so is not useful where valuing the portfolio would be useful in being more complete and more relevant to most purposes.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
If the speed limit on a road is 65 MPH you might drive 65 MPH. If you’re an aggressive driver you might drive 80 MPH. If you’re a conservative driver you might drive 55 MPH. If it’s raining hard, regardless of how you normally drive, you slow down because conditions have changed. If it’s raining so hard you can’t see, you might pull over. You don’t just driving the same speed because there’s a sign on the side of the road that says 65 MPH. If you don’t slow down you have a high likelihood of ending up in a ditch.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 amIf 100% is your standard then I suppose you consider driving to be reckless too? If your standard for "reckless" if out of step with everyone, fine, but it sounded like you had some complaint about how the 4% rule works in practice that doesn't align with the success rates reported in the studies.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:24 amWhile the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
Likewise, a retired person may be 60/40, 70/30, or 50/50 AA. They may all be withdrawing 4%, or maybe aggressive ones are withdrawing 5% or conservative ones are withdrawing 3%. But if the market crashes 50%, its reckless to continue going at the same speed until conditions improve.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Note that Jags is talking about continuing to spend the inflation-adjusted amount after a "black swan" type event in one's retirement years that has devastated one's portfolio. Because it is the only portfolio one has, it would be necessary to find a way to adjust expenses.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 amIf 100% is your standard then I suppose you consider driving to be reckless too? If your standard for "reckless" if out of step with everyone, fine, but it sounded like you had some complaint about how the 4% rule works in practice that doesn't align with the success rates reported in the studies.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:24 amWhile the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
It feels like you read his comment differently, i.e. that the risk of retiring with 25x is too great a risk to take.
Or to use your example, he is not saying to give up driving due to risk. I believe he is saying to go ahead and take the road trip but if the "low tire pressure" light comes on while driving down the highway at 70MPH, it would be prudent to do something about it before losing control of the vehicle.
It's not an engineering problem - Hersh Shefrin | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
William Bengen's original article that proposed the 4% withdrawal rate isn't a very long read, and might help clarify what he meant. There have been a lot of interpretations over the years.coldweather wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 5:50 pm Hello, I'm just looking for clarification on the 25x annual spending rule in order to fund retirement. I understand this is just a rough guideline, but I'm unclear about how inflation plays into this. For example, if I need $40,000 per year to live on, and I reach a point where I have $1,000,000 in my taxable account, can I safely retire, or would I need more that that to account for inflation? 20 years into this theoretical retirement, that 40k needed per year might become 50k or who knows how much. Am I on the right track here and if so, how do I calculate a FI number that includes inflation in it? Thank you!
The paper is located here: https://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf
Some takeaways that may surprise you:
1) The guidance was originally aimed at financial planners, not individuals. It was to provide guidance to advisors as to how to best manage client portfolios and withdrawal rates. That doesn't mean that you can't use the guidance yourself, but it was aimed at people who provided an extra safeguard to keep their clients from panicking during a downturn. If you need that help, you might need to see it out separately.
2) The 4% rate was a guideline, based on what worked in the past. He stresses flexibility, and increasing or decreasing that rate depending upon market conditions. It wasn't a hard and fast rule. Bengen has since updated the number, believing that it's higher. However, it includes all costs, including taxes and advisor fees.
3) The inflation adjustment is supposed to be your own personal inflation rate. If your costs aren't increasing, you shouldn't adjust. It's based on maintaining your lifestyle. CPI may not reflect your inflation rate.
Also, there is a flaw in the 4% rule that is not immediately obvious. The study he ran is based on the best safe maximum withdrawal rate over a historical time period that included the Great Depression and other bad economic events. However, most people have a tendency to decide they want to retire when they meet a magic number (in your case, $1,000,000). And you're most likely to hit that number when the market is hitting all-time-highs.
In other words, if you follow the 4% Rule, and you retire as soon as you hit your number, you are much more likely to retire at a market peak. Few people retire at a market trough with 4% (even though that's the best survival case.)
The key takeaway should be that the 4% Rule is more of a Rule of Thumb, and should be used as guidance to know when you're in the ballpark of having enough assets to retire. Build in buffers and safeguards. This includes things like a paid-off house, maximizing social security, keeping a sufficient emergency fund, and having a retirement budget that allows slack so that you could reduce expenses (and your withdrawal rate) when the market conditions require it. And yes, it might mean going back to work to supplement your income or replenish your nest egg if necessary.
Some people insist on higher multiples, like 33X or 50X annual spending (3% rule or 2% rule). I think that's excessive. If your budget allows you to cut back so that you can live on 2% or 3% indefinitely, then you only need to do that when market conditions require. But you could still withdraw 4% at all other times. (In other words, just build slack in the form of discretionary spending into your plan. If something like a global pandemic comes up, cancel the trip to Europe that year. Or do 2 cruises instead of 3. Or switch from 1st class to economy. It doesn't actually take much.)
Another approach is to use a high multiple for your essential spending requirements, and a variable withdrawal method for your discretionary spending. Two examples of variable withdrawal methods are: 1) Using a flat 4% withdrawal rate off of each year's balance (also known as constant percentage method); or 2) Using a method such as Variable Percentage Withdrawal (VPW) (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Variabl ... 0portfolio.)
Last edited by wolf359 on Mon May 17, 2021 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 18499
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
4% comes from the Trinity study which found that there's a great chance of not running out of money in 30 years. Where I take issue with FIRE people is that they take those results and meld it into "I can live on 4% forever and never run out of money". Well, no. It's possible you retire at 29 and at 60 you're perilously close to running out of money. Then what?
I'm a huge proponent in setting up safety nets. What safety nets can you set up for retirement? Pad that 4%. I use a padding number of 2 times, thus my number is 50 times spending, which I do have. Another way to pad is to have at least some money in instruments that can't go down in value. I've got US Savings bonds in that category. Finally, don't have debt. As much as I can see the math in a bull market of keeping a mortgage, I can see during a bear market where one can see their portfolio lose value, lose your job and have a difficult time paying the bills. In that scenario, the bank comes to take your house. You gambled that the money you could have used to pay off the mortgage would earn more in the market. If that investment has now lost money and you're out of a job, you'd better have a good sized emergency fund or you'll be out of the house. I do also see people saying that because 2 spouses are working, they don't need an emergency fund. Well, alrighty then....since Covid only hit one indurstry, right?
I'm a huge proponent in setting up safety nets. What safety nets can you set up for retirement? Pad that 4%. I use a padding number of 2 times, thus my number is 50 times spending, which I do have. Another way to pad is to have at least some money in instruments that can't go down in value. I've got US Savings bonds in that category. Finally, don't have debt. As much as I can see the math in a bull market of keeping a mortgage, I can see during a bear market where one can see their portfolio lose value, lose your job and have a difficult time paying the bills. In that scenario, the bank comes to take your house. You gambled that the money you could have used to pay off the mortgage would earn more in the market. If that investment has now lost money and you're out of a job, you'd better have a good sized emergency fund or you'll be out of the house. I do also see people saying that because 2 spouses are working, they don't need an emergency fund. Well, alrighty then....since Covid only hit one indurstry, right?
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I think you're right on both counts. As Jags is putting it makes some sense: time to use the breaks if conditions don't look good. But the comment I was quoting from by azanon was saying that using the 4% rule is reckless. Maybe he meant something more specific, but I don't see it in what he wrote.David Jay wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:09 amNote that Jags is talking about continuing to spend the inflation-adjusted amount after a "black swan" type event in one's retirement years that has devastated one's portfolio. Because it is the only portfolio one has, it would be necessary to find a way to adjust expenses.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 amIf 100% is your standard then I suppose you consider driving to be reckless too? If your standard for "reckless" if out of step with everyone, fine, but it sounded like you had some complaint about how the 4% rule works in practice that doesn't align with the success rates reported in the studies.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:24 amWhile the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
It feels like you read his comment differently, i.e. that the risk of retiring with 25x is too great a risk to take.
Or to use your example, he is not saying to give up driving due to risk. I believe he is saying to go ahead and take the road trip but if the "low tire pressure" light comes on while driving down the highway at 70MPH, it would be prudent to do something about it before losing control of the vehicle.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
50X for someone retiring in their 20s is probably prudent. Someone working til 50s- 60s to get to 50x to feel "safe" is extremely excessive. That's essentially planning for Armageddon, which is not a good use of time or energy.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I know we’re all answering for everyone else which makes this confusing to follow and I apologize. The way I see it is that it is reckless to follow a rule blindly because it’s “supposed” to work. You may quickly find yourself past the point of no return. The penalty for messing up, even if it is a very small chance, is devastating. The 4% rule is a guide, not an individual plan.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:25 am I think you're right on both counts. As Jags is putting it makes some sense: time to use the breaks if conditions don't look good. But the comment I was quoting from by azanon was saying that using the 4% rule is reckless. Maybe he meant something more specific, but I don't see it in what he wrote.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
From my perspective, the key is that while overall the chance of failure may be low with 4%, once you've experienced a stock market crash you need to look at the conditional probability of success under those conditions. Combine that with the fact that, as wolf359 points out, early retirees are more likely to retire after the market has been abnormally good, that conditional probability of failure is likely to be unacceptably high. It'd be interested to see if someone has worked out the numbers, either based on historical data or Monte Carlo simulation.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:40 amI know we’re all answering for everyone else which makes this confusing to follow and I apologize. The way I see it is that it is reckless to follow a rule blindly because it’s “supposed” to work. You may quickly find yourself past the point of no return. The penalty for messing up, even if it is a very small chance, is devastating. The 4% rule is a guide, not an individual plan.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:25 am I think you're right on both counts. As Jags is putting it makes some sense: time to use the breaks if conditions don't look good. But the comment I was quoting from by azanon was saying that using the 4% rule is reckless. Maybe he meant something more specific, but I don't see it in what he wrote.
BTW, thanks for the apology but you're fine. I didn't initially notice I wasn't responding to the same person (though I should have) and I appreciate David Jay interjecting the way he did.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Yes, this is theoretically correct, including the recognition that early, or any retirement, might be taken because there has been a recent run-up in markets.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:48 amFrom my perspective, the key is that while overall the chance of failure may be low with 4%, once you've experienced a stock market crash you need to look at the conditional probability of success under those conditions. Combine that with the fact that, as wolf359 points out, early retirees are more likely to retire after the market has been abnormally good, that conditional probability of failure is likely to be unacceptably high. It'd be interested to see if someone has worked out the numbers, either based on historical data or Monte Carlo simulation.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:40 amI know we’re all answering for everyone else which makes this confusing to follow and I apologize. The way I see it is that it is reckless to follow a rule blindly because it’s “supposed” to work. You may quickly find yourself past the point of no return. The penalty for messing up, even if it is a very small chance, is devastating. The 4% rule is a guide, not an individual plan.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:25 am I think you're right on both counts. As Jags is putting it makes some sense: time to use the breaks if conditions don't look good. But the comment I was quoting from by azanon was saying that using the 4% rule is reckless. Maybe he meant something more specific, but I don't see it in what he wrote.
I think the big obstacle to evaluating conditional probabilities is that there is already huge uncertainty in these analyses and the data just doesn't exist to compute those things with useful margin of error.
There is a paper by Kitces that addresses the presumed contradiction that it can't be right to apply the same 4% estimate just before rather than just after a market crash. The argument is effectively a conditional probability one that if you know the market has just run up or just run down the immediate future returns should be modeled as less, respectively greater, than average. I don't have a link handy.
Also, there has been a post or posts here purporting to be a chart of safe withdrawal rate by year, and the number is highly variable. I don't know if it is correlated to returns just before retirement. In safe withdrawal rate studies such as FireCalc the bad years to retire are not necessarily correlated with market crashes but rather with being in secular bear markets or hit by the inflation peaks rising in the 1970's. That is why the mid sixties are such bad years to retire, and 1982 at the beginning of a secular bull market and decline of inflation is a good year to retire.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Sure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Indeed so. From the beginning these 4% results were intended and published as analyses of how portfolios behave and not as proposed plans for how people should manage investments in retirement. The results are probably useful for giving a person a ballpark from a distance regarding how they stand. At the time, historically, the significance was in showing how the actual statistics of variable returns increase the downside and the upside of what happens to portfolios compared to assuming fixed annual returns that are not how investments, stocks especially, actually behave.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I think the reality is that while you may have a high likelihood of success with 4%, I don’t think most people including myself could handle miserly performance and continue spending at ever increasing rates.
Here’s the 4% rule in action over a 30 year period, starting with $1mm. It has a 96.7% rate of success. How many people would really be comfortable with performance underneath the black line I added in?
Everything between the red line and the black line is a “success” but it seems to me to be a stressful experience.
Here’s the 4% rule in action over a 30 year period, starting with $1mm. It has a 96.7% rate of success. How many people would really be comfortable with performance underneath the black line I added in?
Everything between the red line and the black line is a “success” but it seems to me to be a stressful experience.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
A follow-up study has already been performed though. If you want to preserve the initial asset value, we pretty much have to go equities-heavy: https://i1.wp.com/earlyretirementnow.co ... table1.pngJags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:39 am I think the reality is that while you may have a high likelihood of success with 4%, I don’t think most people including myself could handle miserly performance and continue spending at ever increasing rates.
Here’s the 4% rule in action over a 30 year period, starting with $1mm. It has a 96.7% rate of success. How many people would really be comfortable with performance underneath the black line I added in?
Everything between the red line and the black line is a “success” but it seems to me to be a stressful experience.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
If the 4% Rule plan is going to fail, it is obvious in the first 5-10 years. If you can see disaster coming 20-25 years in advance, who would stay on that path until they're running out of money?Jack FFR1846 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:17 am 4% comes from the Trinity study which found that there's a great chance of not running out of money in 30 years. Where I take issue with FIRE people is that they take those results and meld it into "I can live on 4% forever and never run out of money". Well, no. It's possible you retire at 29 and at 60 you're perilously close to running out of money. Then what?
Put another way, would a money geek who obsesses over their safe withdrawal rate, and has the discipline, talent, and earning power to accumulate 25X their expenses by age 29, be unable to see this coming and not make adjustments? The failure rate is NOT the chance of failure. It's the chance that you might need to adjust your plan. If you build in some flexibility, you're fine. You can make the changes at age 35, not at 60.
There's an interesting read here: https://livingafi.com/2021/03/17/the-20 ... nt-update/
This was an early retirement success and failure. They didn't fail because they ran out of money. There are other things you need to do to prepare for retirement.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
-
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:36 am
-
- Posts: 1592
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:13 am
- Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Personally, I figure it is zero for the first 10-20 years, might as well just use zero in the calculations. But then, my own SS will be rather puny between years teaching (but not long enough in one place for a pension) and years on a grad school stipend that was not classified as income and early retirement...Independent George wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 12:05 pmI don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
-
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:36 am
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I don't have a pension, so that's automatically zero. For Social Security, even if stays 100% of benefits, I expect my benefits to be close enough to zero that it won't make a difference. I was in college until I was 32 and plan to retire at 50. When half of my 35 years for SS are zero (or extremely close to zero), I expect my SS benefit to be pretty much worthless. Especially if it gets slashed 25-50%.Independent George wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 12:05 pmI don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
They're not forgotten. They're buffers.Independent George wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 12:05 pmI don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
I am claiming Social Security as late as possible, as cheap longevity insurance.
Realistically I expect Social Security to pay out 75% of expected benefits, in line with the Trustee's report. Therefore, I also am reserving some money in a traditional IRA to fund a QLAC annuity. This will be an additional longevity annuity that will help address the Social Security reduction.
Both the QLAC and Social Security are purely in the role of insurance. If there's an adverse investment event late in life, these income streams kicking in will reduce or eliminate the need for me to go back to work to put food on the table. Since I'm not counting on them as part of my primary retirement income plan, I do not include them in my estimates. I'm aware that their value isn't really zero, but they are for conservative planning purposes.
A paid off house is another buffer. I do not intend to use it, but if I had to, I could downsize and use the proceeds to replenish my investment nest egg. That smaller home could be used as the basis for a reverse mortgage.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
SS benefits are heavily skewed toward lower accumulations, as the frequent discussions of break points illustrate. And while arguably the SSA's current plans would call for a across-the-board reduction, I believe almost everyone agrees that would be an unlikely scenario.LiterallyIronic wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 1:32 pmI don't have a pension, so that's automatically zero. For Social Security, even if stays 100% of benefits, I expect my benefits to be close enough to zero that it won't make a difference. I was in college until I was 32 and plan to retire at 50. When half of my 35 years for SS are zero (or extremely close to zero), I expect my SS benefit to be pretty much worthless. Especially if it gets slashed 25-50%.Independent George wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 12:05 pmI don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
For someone retiring at 50, it is not unreasonable to discount SS entirely. With 20 years to go before SS would start, the WR does not change that much (depending on anticipated expenses) when including vs not including it.tibbitts wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 1:57 pmSS benefits are heavily skewed toward lower accumulations, as the frequent discussions of break points illustrate. And while arguably the SSA's current plans would call for a across-the-board reduction, I believe almost everyone agrees that would be an unlikely scenario.LiterallyIronic wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 1:32 pmI don't have a pension, so that's automatically zero. For Social Security, even if stays 100% of benefits, I expect my benefits to be close enough to zero that it won't make a difference. I was in college until I was 32 and plan to retire at 50. When half of my 35 years for SS are zero (or extremely close to zero), I expect my SS benefit to be pretty much worthless. Especially if it gets slashed 25-50%.Independent George wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 12:05 pmI don't think zero is a reasonable assumption. Pension numbers will differ based on the individual circumstances, but for Social Security, 50% - 75% of projected benefits is far more realistic - 50% as a worst case scenario, 75% as the amount after benefit cuts needed to make the system solvent under current projections.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
That's a great analogy.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 amIf the speed limit on a road is 65 MPH you might drive 65 MPH. If you’re an aggressive driver you might drive 80 MPH. If you’re a conservative driver you might drive 55 MPH. If it’s raining hard, regardless of how you normally drive, you slow down because conditions have changed. If it’s raining so hard you can’t see, you might pull over. You don’t just driving the same speed because there’s a sign on the side of the road that says 65 MPH. If you don’t slow down you have a high likelihood of ending up in a ditch.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 amIf 100% is your standard then I suppose you consider driving to be reckless too? If your standard for "reckless" if out of step with everyone, fine, but it sounded like you had some complaint about how the 4% rule works in practice that doesn't align with the success rates reported in the studies.Jags4186 wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 9:24 amWhile the 4% rule has a very high probability of success, it is not a 100% probability of success. Since you are 1 person living 1 life during 1 time period, it would be reckless to continue to increase your spending if your portfolio is getting destroyed. You may never recover and portfolio failure could lead to personal catastrophe.
Likewise, a retired person may be 60/40, 70/30, or 50/50 AA. They may all be withdrawing 4%, or maybe aggressive ones are withdrawing 5% or conservative ones are withdrawing 3%. But if the market crashes 50%, its reckless to continue going at the same speed until conditions improve.
"The day you die is just like any other, only shorter." |
― Samuel Beckett
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Why would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 amI think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:05 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
I'm confused, now you're saying it's the fact that the success rate is only 97% (so 3.5% WR with 100% stocks 100% success rate is good enough?) that makes you dislike it, but earlier you said that it's "inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way". Which is it?azanon wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:39 amWhy would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 amI think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
To place any confidence in the difference between a 97% success rate and a 100% success rate given all the unknowns is misguided.azanon wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:39 amWhy would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 amI think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
There are no guarantees.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
A better approach to issues like this 97% vs 100% is to test the outcomes by trying different amounts of withdrawal that score 100% and notice at what point the first failures start to appear. One can then set a contingency for withdrawal some margin less. It is also worthwhile to notice how fast the failure rate accelerates with increasing withdrawal, or with whatever one is attending to.
But in general one should imagine a margin applied to those numbers, maybe at least 5%, maybe 10%. If you are just at the edge of 100%, I would probably treat that as 90%-95% anyway. I don't know how far to move away from that edge. It is also not crazy to start at a 90%-95% success and see how it goes. Most of the outcomes in retirement withdrawal are not the worst case. Other people want a large margin against worst case issues. This could be drastically affected by how much other income one has. Also, in reality a person does not just set and hold a withdrawal rate. If for no other reason one does not because needs come and go with variation and some unpredictability. The best use of the results is to estimate from some time before retirement roughly what will be needed.
But in general one should imagine a margin applied to those numbers, maybe at least 5%, maybe 10%. If you are just at the edge of 100%, I would probably treat that as 90%-95% anyway. I don't know how far to move away from that edge. It is also not crazy to start at a 90%-95% success and see how it goes. Most of the outcomes in retirement withdrawal are not the worst case. Other people want a large margin against worst case issues. This could be drastically affected by how much other income one has. Also, in reality a person does not just set and hold a withdrawal rate. If for no other reason one does not because needs come and go with variation and some unpredictability. The best use of the results is to estimate from some time before retirement roughly what will be needed.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Really? There is no comparison at all to a system that cannot fail and one that can.delamer wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 10:29 amTo place any confidence in the difference between a 97% success rate and a 100% success rate given all the unknowns is misguided.azanon wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:39 amWhy would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 amI think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 amSure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
There are no guarantees.
Strictly speaking (mathematically speaking), there are several methods that can't fail. While I'm not endorsing it, as just an example, the "constant percent" method cannot fail. If you only withdraw a percent of something indefinitely, it never hits zero.
I would never use a system that had a failure rate. To each his/her own.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Every system has a non-zero failure rate.azanon wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:30 amReally? There is no comparison at all to a system that cannot fail and one that can.delamer wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 10:29 amTo place any confidence in the difference between a 97% success rate and a 100% success rate given all the unknowns is misguided.azanon wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:39 amWhy would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 amI think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.azanon wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:18 am
Sure.
When someone say's they're going to use the "4% Rule" for retirement income, I assume they're implying a "Constant Dollar" method where they're going to increase subsequent years withdrawals by inflation from the initial year 1 amount. The problem with that is, "strictly speaking," you only make an initial year decision of how much to withdraw, then you are completely unopen/recalcitrant to adjusting your withdrawals based on how your actual portfolio balance is changing over time. So to me, that's inherently reckless to choose to use a system that doesn't adjust in any way to what is actually happening to your portfolio balance, whether it's done mechanically as part of a dynamic retirement system, or if you at least have some rules in your IPS that call for making adjustments annually, every 5 years, etc.
So yes, the very strict "constant dollar" and then hope and pray method, is a very bad one. Call that an opinion if you want, but I'm comfortable stating that as matter-of-fact though.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
There are no guarantees.
Strictly speaking (mathematically speaking), there are several methods that can't fail. While I'm not endorsing it, as just an example, the "constant percent" method cannot fail. If you only withdraw a percent of something indefinitely, it never hits zero.
I would never use a system that had a failure rate. To each his/her own.
Even the "constant percent" method has a failure mode. Ie. your withdrawal is down to $25 a year. Hard to live on that.
A lot can happen in a long retirement. I think looking for a "100%" method is not terribly useful. Maybe you have a wonderful withdrawal system but wind up with massive health care costs that you cannot pay for unless you have 10s of millions of dollars. Etc.
I think that is the larger point delamer is making. Looking for guarantees decades into the future ... there is no guarantee.
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
That’s correct.TN_Boy wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:48 amEvery system has a non-zero failure rate.azanon wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:30 amReally? There is no comparison at all to a system that cannot fail and one that can.delamer wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 10:29 amTo place any confidence in the difference between a 97% success rate and a 100% success rate given all the unknowns is misguided.azanon wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:39 amWhy would I use a system with a 97% chance of success when I can use one with a 100% chance? I'll pass on a 3% chance of ruin.AnEngineer wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 11:57 am
I think you're missing something about the 4% rule then. It shows that even if you don't adjust your withdrawals (except for inflation), then you still have a very large chance of success (the table by Marseille07 shows 95% success with 50% stocks over 30 years, 97% with 100% stocks). If you are willing to adjust spending down in the presence of poor returns, you'll do even better.
Your tone sounds like the 4% rule underpredicts the amount of money you need to retire, but your argument actually says it may overpredict it.
And if you're going to introduce willingness of adjusting based on outcome, then my objection is completely removed. But then we're no longer talking about 4% rule/constant dollar method.
There are no guarantees.
Strictly speaking (mathematically speaking), there are several methods that can't fail. While I'm not endorsing it, as just an example, the "constant percent" method cannot fail. If you only withdraw a percent of something indefinitely, it never hits zero.
I would never use a system that had a failure rate. To each his/her own.
Even the "constant percent" method has a failure mode. Ie. your withdrawal is down to $25 a year. Hard to live on that.
A lot can happen in a long retirement. I think looking for a "100%" method is not terribly useful. Maybe you have a wonderful withdrawal system but wind up with massive health care costs that you cannot pay for unless you have 10s of millions of dollars. Etc.
I think that is the larger point delamer is making. Looking for guarantees decades into the future ... there is no guarantee.
We need to define “success.” If success is not running your portfolio to zero before you die, that’s different than if success is being able to support a specific level of spending until you die.
Of course it is true that if you withdraw 5% or 10% or even 25% of your portfolio each year, you’ll never run out of money (assuming you have some diversity in your portfolio). However, you’ll probably have a highly variable level of withdrawals from year-to-year. So, therefore, you may not be able to support your preferred spending.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
There's a big difference between "constant-dollar" not failing (yet) vs "constant-percentage" not failing.azanon wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:30 am Really? There is no comparison at all to a system that cannot fail and one that can.
Strictly speaking (mathematically speaking), there are several methods that can't fail. While I'm not endorsing it, as just an example, the "constant percent" method cannot fail. If you only withdraw a percent of something indefinitely, it never hits zero.
I would never use a system that had a failure rate. To each his/her own.
The former always carries a non-zero risk of failure. Some SWR just hasn't experienced it yet, given our historical data. The latter mathematically never fails.
-
- Posts: 18499
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Perhaps I should change my name to Armageddon Excessivicus mit Extremeicus.
Yes, I'm mixing pig Latin and gerbil German.
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Please define what you mean by success/failure.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:20 pmThere's a big difference between "constant-dollar" not failing (yet) vs "constant-percentage" not failing.azanon wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:30 am Really? There is no comparison at all to a system that cannot fail and one that can.
Strictly speaking (mathematically speaking), there are several methods that can't fail. While I'm not endorsing it, as just an example, the "constant percent" method cannot fail. If you only withdraw a percent of something indefinitely, it never hits zero.
I would never use a system that had a failure rate. To each his/her own.
The former always carries a non-zero risk of failure. Some SWR just hasn't experienced it yet, given our historical data. The latter mathematically never fails.
Lets say you start with a $1M, and choose a 4% constant percentage approach, so $40k in the first year. If the constant percentage runs down the portfolio to say $394 such that this year's withdrawal is $15.76, do you still consider it a "success" since you have not technically run out of money?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Clarification on 25x annual spending rule
Sure. I mean this discussion is academic in that the success criteria used by the Trinity Study is also simply having $0+ after 30 years.marcopolo wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:43 pm Please define what you mean by success/failure.
Lets say you start with a $1M, and choose a 4% constant percentage approach, so $40k in the first year. If the constant percentage runs down the portfolio to say $394 such that this year's withdrawal is $15.76, do you still consider it a "success" since you have not technically run out of money?
I was just replying to the above poster saying SWR "cannot fail" is misguided, and even more misguided was to compare with "constant-percentage."