Thanks dbrdbr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:07 pmIt isn't a strategy until you specify rules for where you take withdrawals and when and how much you move from one bucket to the other. If you aren't yet supporting yourself from your investments the concept does not apply. The hypothetical use of an emergency fund is not really what is meant in this conversation. If your plan when you retire is to maintain a 60/40 asset allocation and take withdrawals at a rate you estimate to be "safe" then that is not a buckets strategy. It is the "other" strategy.rebellovw wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:55 am So many pages on this post - I assume I'm using a bucket strategy as I have:
60/40 - 3 fund type portfolio - fixed income in TBM.
EF - @ 100K - CDs, Treasuries, iBonds and cash. Bucket.
No debt.
I'm glad my EF wasn't all in my TBM - as that has tanked - so I guess moving forward - I need to merge the EF with the Fixed asset and re-evaluate my AA.
The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
The issue that people object to is not to using buckets. It is spreading misinformation along the lines of "Buckets mean I didn't have to sell equities during the bear. I avoided SORR". You know the stuff that shows up in basically every bucket article.dknightd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:36 amI think that is a good thing. People who like buckets will be fine. As you say, they are ineffectual. That means they are neither good or bad. So we can choose what we prefer.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I kind of like the "other" strategy. The differences are little.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Perhaps the good thing from the discussion, is that it does matter very much.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
So much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
so, you basically wasted our timeTinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:50 pmSo much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Nope, there’s a lot of misconception and false claims about the bucket strategy that don’t add up, and we would do well to help people understand the trade offs and lack of benefits, especially regarding SORR. Lots of people feel safer with a big stack of cash, which can be fine, but once they dig into the math, they realize it isn’t helping. Could be even hurting them if they have a long enough horizon.dknightd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:55 pmso, you basically wasted our timeTinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:50 pmSo much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
Last edited by TinyHouse on Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Bingo!randomguy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:23 pmThe issue that people object to is not to using buckets. It is spreading misinformation along the lines of "Buckets mean I didn't have to sell equities during the bear. I avoided SORR". You know the stuff that shows up in basically every bucket article.dknightd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:36 amI think that is a good thing. People who like buckets will be fine. As you say, they are ineffectual. That means they are neither good or bad. So we can choose what we prefer.
-
- Posts: 25625
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
- Location: New York
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Have a large enough portfolio and me holding cash, bonds or equities in the bucket really doesn't matter. This misconception that there is only one way to handle retirement or any spending for that matter is just nonsense. The only thing that really matters is one's ability to adhere to stay the course once they begin, it's the deviations that usually cause injury. The bucket strategy is a pretty good way to avoid severe injury. Putting all of your money in equities and then panicking at the first 10%+ decline is a sure way to hurt oneself.TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:12 pmNope, there’s a lot of misconception and false claims about the bucket strategy that don’t add up, and we would do well to help people understand the trade offs and lack of benefits, especially regarding SORR. Lots of people feel safer with a big stack of cash, which can be fine, but once they dig into the math, they realize it isn’t helping. Could be even hurting them if they have a long enough horizon.dknightd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:55 pmso, you basically wasted our timeTinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:50 pmSo much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
That sounds really nice, not all of us are that fortunate! For those of us planning 25 to 30x our living expenses invested for retirement, or just don’t want to work longer than we have to, we tend to pay attention to these things and try to optimize.Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:20 pm
Have a large enough portfolio and me holding cash, bonds or equities in the bucket really doesn't matter.
-
- Posts: 25625
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
- Location: New York
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
It's relative, depending on what age you want to retire, you may need more, you may need less or you may have just enough. A 25x living expenses will likely carry you as far as 30 years or longer, but most folks statistically run out of life before they run out of money.TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:29 pmThat sounds really nice, not all of us are that fortunate! For those of us planning 25 to 30x our living expenses invested for retirement, or just don’t want to work longer than we have to, we tend to pay attention to these things and try to optimize.Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:20 pm
Have a large enough portfolio and me holding cash, bonds or equities in the bucket really doesn't matter.
I'd like to see ERN or any other source produce a study of real-life occurrences of portfolio depletion that is actually tied back to a real person(s) or subset of groups which is directly attributable to portfolio construction rather than life events for which very few of us could ever actually defuse all of those risks. Otherwise these hypotheticals based on past time periods are of little value especially when producing click-bait claims that this strategy or that strategy is ineffective. While they certainly generate discussion, they also create alot of unwarranted and unneeded anxiety for many.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
-
- Posts: 10433
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Sorry for the confusion.nedsaid wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:56 amOkay, that makes sense and is more clear.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:26 am
I am saying to simply maintain the asset allocation, thereby always drawing from the heavier asset. If 62/38, draw from stocks until 60/40. If 58/42, draw from fixed income until 60/40. Rebalance when off 5%.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:00 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
HUH?WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:38 am Huh?
It’s been awhile since I read the book but, McClung’s preferred approach is far from the BH recommendation of simply spending and rebalancing from a portfolio. Of important note, there is NO TARGET AA. It’s a great read but it’s not an approach I can execute with conviction.
WoodSpinner
McClung address "Target AA" at length. It address at length, again, traditional annual rebalancing as well as other harvesting methods. It reviews 50/50 through 90/10 with supporting MSWR for each based on his backtesting. It reviews 6 or so basic portfolios, including sp500/bond, with MSWR with various harvesting methods as well. I have had to reread this book several times over the years. It is a heavy read for me. It is not a book of a singular approach but many including annuities. I find it amazing it was written by an engineer. Is it the bible, no! It it a good source for retirees, definitely!
It seemed, this thread was calling almost anything as a bucket method. I quoted McClung because he identified 2 method called "bucket" methods in particular with details. His backtesting on these strategies underperformed. I offered McClung's work as a source only for what I think this thread is really talking about!
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
ERN previously praised the above "never refilled" cash bucket strategy back in Part 25 of the The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates series:CloseEnough wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:29 pm I would use a modified bucket strategy, when entering retirement. A bucket of 1-2 years of cash (actual cash, MM funds, CDs, not bond funds) and use it if the market turns down as you transition to retirement. If the market recovers before your cash bucket is gone, do nothing, stop using the cash unless needed for tax efficiency. If the market does not recover and you burn through your cash bucket, you are now in the SAA approach. Never refill the cash bucket that you had while entering retirement. Why? Just makes me feel better, eases the transition as it is a big enough transition without also having to draw from accounts that are all down in the first year. I know it does not make sense, and does not pass the analytical test.
"So, for the record, let me state that this cash bucket strategy seems to work pretty well, despite my previous doubts!
It’s relatively inexpensive insurance against Sequence Risk!
Think of it as a mini-glidepath during the first few years of retirement!
And it 'only' takes the flexibility of getting to 27.5x instead of 25x annual spending!"
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2018/05/ ... ity-myths/
-
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2021 1:31 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I don't think TH really said this, but if I had only one bucket, and could never really retire, as I might need money, it is not a good bucket strategy for me.TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:50 pm So much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
McClung's "Living off Your Money" is an excellent book. It was an education for me and enabled me to think differently about asset allocation, income harvesting methods, and risks. I created a plan to float my asset allocation by placing a fixed amount of assets in equity, never buying more, and selling if the market does well. I am fine with letting my asset allocation float (as long as it is between 30/70 or 70/30) since this money will probably never be needed for essential spending.Muffin Master wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:56 pmHUH?WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:38 am Huh?
It’s been awhile since I read the book but, McClung’s preferred approach is far from the BH recommendation of simply spending and rebalancing from a portfolio. Of important note, there is NO TARGET AA. It’s a great read but it’s not an approach I can execute with conviction.
WoodSpinner
McClung address "Target AA" at length. It address at length, again, traditional annual rebalancing as well as other harvesting methods. It reviews 50/50 through 90/10 with supporting MSWR for each based on his backtesting. It reviews 6 or so basic portfolios, including sp500/bond, with MSWR with various harvesting methods as well. I have had to reread this book several times over the years. It is a heavy read for me. It is not a book of a singular approach but many including annuities. I find it amazing it was written by an engineer. Is it the bible, no! It it a good source for retirees, definitely!
It seemed, this thread was calling almost anything as a bucket method. I quoted McClung because he identified 2 method called "bucket" methods in particular with details. His backtesting on these strategies underperformed. I offered McClung's work as a source only for what I think this thread is really talking about!
I view the "spooky" sequence of return risk (SORR) as a second-order factor. I think the more direct problems I will face in my retirement planning are factors such as withdrawal rate, retirement length, and portfolio returns (note this is not the same as SORR).
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:00 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
If ENR 3 bucket approach is this:
https://www.theretirementmanifesto.com/ ... -paycheck/
It seems to have 17 components categorized in 3 different buckets. Each bucket being a different harvest model, I think. I didn't read that far. I am not sure how it might backtest during stress periods nor if I would trust the testing because of all the moving parts and there complexities anyway.
I am not saying its a bad strategy but from my personal stand point this retirement strategy is just too difficult to maintain for me and explain to my wife and kids at the same time. It becomes mute.
https://www.theretirementmanifesto.com/ ... -paycheck/
It seems to have 17 components categorized in 3 different buckets. Each bucket being a different harvest model, I think. I didn't read that far. I am not sure how it might backtest during stress periods nor if I would trust the testing because of all the moving parts and there complexities anyway.
I am not saying its a bad strategy but from my personal stand point this retirement strategy is just too difficult to maintain for me and explain to my wife and kids at the same time. It becomes mute.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:00 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I use this formula as a "guide" to do basic harvesting similar to what you are doing.
(CPI-U of current / CPI-U initial date) * initial stock price = inflation adjust initial stock value
(inflation adjust initial stock value) X 1.20 (20%) = harvest trigger
I rebalance to "inflation adjust initial stock value"
In short, I try to capture some percentage [20%] of REAL returns and drop then in the bond bucket.
I go here to get my CPI date every so often:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
I wonder if I should use CPI-U as a gauge of inflation though.
I might be drifting (off topic)
Last edited by Muffin Master on Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
dbr,dbr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:47 amWhy not. It means you have a store of wealth with certain prospects one can estimate to grow or shrink over time as you withdraw from that wealth to spend. Otherwise I don't know what is meant by "position my assets."WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:42 am
Possibly true, but saying I have a 60/40 portfolio tells me NOTHING about how to position my assets to meet my Cashflow needs.
WoodSpinner
Not sure we’re the confusion is…
My perspective is that it is more effective to hold assets and match them to the duration of my needs. For example:
I know I need $100,000 for next years expenses. A Bucket or LMP strategy helps me decide how to invest (a CD, Bond, MYGA etc.) to meet those needs. A SAA approach provides NO information on how to invest for these needs over time.
Why would I invest money I need next year the same way I would invest for a future inheritance?
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
-
- Posts: 10433
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
So put reasonably expected future needs in cash or short term bonds. Consider it part of fixed income.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:43 pmdbr,dbr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:47 amWhy not. It means you have a store of wealth with certain prospects one can estimate to grow or shrink over time as you withdraw from that wealth to spend. Otherwise I don't know what is meant by "position my assets."WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:42 am
Possibly true, but saying I have a 60/40 portfolio tells me NOTHING about how to position my assets to meet my Cashflow needs.
WoodSpinner
Not sure we’re the confusion is…
My perspective is that it is more effective to hold assets and match them to the duration of my needs. For example:
I know I need $100,000 for next years expenses. A Bucket or LMP strategy helps me decide how to invest (a CD, Bond, MYGA etc.) to meet those needs. A SAA approach provides NO information on how to invest for these needs over time.
Why would I invest money I need next year the same way I would invest for a future inheritance?
WoodSpinner
Outside of that, it is too far in the weeds for my liking.
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Are you currently retired and living off your portfolio?TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:50 pmSo much of my allocation is in equities (90%+) that there really isn’t any rebalancing and I don’t really pay attention to allocation, I just make sure as many of my dollars are in the market as I reasonably can. If I have money to invest, I put it in equities (vtsax). If I need money, I earn it or just sell equities. Simple and effective. I’ll be doing this for the next 60+ years, Lord willing.
You might say I kinda have a bucket strategy, and it’s just one bucket and it’s mostly equities in a well diversified portfolio of total market funds.
Perhaps our life circumstances are simply different….
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Sigh, have you noted anyone recommending a Bucket Strategy during Accumulation? When I was working, I would never have considered that structure.TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:29 pmThat sounds really nice, not all of us are that fortunate! For those of us planning 25 to 30x our living expenses invested for retirement, or just don’t want to work longer than we have to, we tend to pay attention to these things and try to optimize.Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:20 pm
Have a large enough portfolio and me holding cash, bonds or equities in the bucket really doesn't matter.
Decumulation is a very different world, with different risks and different goals.
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I was referring to McClung’s proposed Prime Harvesting Strategy that he recommended as superior. This is a very different approach than what is being proposed as the BH Strategic Asset Allocation strategy.Muffin Master wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:56 pmHUH?WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:38 am Huh?
It’s been awhile since I read the book but, McClung’s preferred approach is far from the BH recommendation of simply spending and rebalancing from a portfolio. Of important note, there is NO TARGET AA. It’s a great read but it’s not an approach I can execute with conviction.
WoodSpinner
McClung address "Target AA" at length. It address at length, again, traditional annual rebalancing as well as other harvesting methods. It reviews 50/50 through 90/10 with supporting MSWR for each based on his backtesting. It reviews 6 or so basic portfolios, including sp500/bond, with MSWR with various harvesting methods as well. I have had to reread this book several times over the years. It is a heavy read for me. It is not a book of a singular approach but many including annuities. I find it amazing it was written by an engineer. Is it the bible, no! It it a good source for retirees, definitely!
It seemed, this thread was calling almost anything as a bucket method. I quoted McClung because he identified 2 method called "bucket" methods in particular with details. His backtesting on these strategies underperformed. I offered McClung's work as a source only for what I think this thread is really talking about!
Does that help clarify things?
WoodSpinner
He did backtest numerous other strategies but
WoodSpinner
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Well we are discussing exactly how to do that— be it a Bucket, LMP , Hybrid or SAA approach.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:46 pmSo put reasonably expected future needs in cash or short term bonds. Consider it part of fixed income.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:43 pmdbr,dbr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:47 amWhy not. It means you have a store of wealth with certain prospects one can estimate to grow or shrink over time as you withdraw from that wealth to spend. Otherwise I don't know what is meant by "position my assets."WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:42 am
Possibly true, but saying I have a 60/40 portfolio tells me NOTHING about how to position my assets to meet my Cashflow needs.
WoodSpinner
Not sure we’re the confusion is…
My perspective is that it is more effective to hold assets and match them to the duration of my needs. For example:
I know I need $100,000 for next years expenses. A Bucket or LMP strategy helps me decide how to invest (a CD, Bond, MYGA etc.) to meet those needs. A SAA approach provides NO information on how to invest for these needs over time.
Why would I invest money I need next year the same way I would invest for a future inheritance?
WoodSpinner
Outside of that, it is too far in the weeds for my liking.
Each of these approaches has certain inherent weaknesses and positive attributes. Find one that works for you but don’t dismiss someone else’s choice simply because it’s different. This is the Personal part of Personal Finance.
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I get the sense that not many people actually read the original article posted... My takeaway is much like the debate in these 6 pages, there is no clear "always better" answer. Here's a direct quote from the original article:ncbill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pmERN previously praised the above "never refilled" cash bucket strategy back in Part 25 of the The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates series:CloseEnough wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:29 pm I would use a modified bucket strategy, when entering retirement. A bucket of 1-2 years of cash (actual cash, MM funds, CDs, not bond funds) and use it if the market turns down as you transition to retirement. If the market recovers before your cash bucket is gone, do nothing, stop using the cash unless needed for tax efficiency. If the market does not recover and you burn through your cash bucket, you are now in the SAA approach. Never refill the cash bucket that you had while entering retirement. Why? Just makes me feel better, eases the transition as it is a big enough transition without also having to draw from accounts that are all down in the first year. I know it does not make sense, and does not pass the analytical test.
"So, for the record, let me state that this cash bucket strategy seems to work pretty well, despite my previous doubts!
It’s relatively inexpensive insurance against Sequence Risk!
Think of it as a mini-glidepath during the first few years of retirement!
And it 'only' takes the flexibility of getting to 27.5x instead of 25x annual spending!"
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2018/05/ ... ity-myths/
This wasn't the only such example...And I want to stress when I say that the Bucket Strategy is ineffective, I don’t mean that it is so bad that you shall never employ it. I could have reshuffled some of the annual returns to construct an example where the BS outperforms SAA by $1,000, like in Fritz’s example above. The bucket approach is unable to beat the SAA reliably and consistently. You can still use it, but don’t expect miraculous results in hedging against Sequence Risk. And absolutely don’t expect the Bucket Strategy to offer full SoRR Insurance.
And thus the "personal" side of personal finance comes in. What I think is the right AA and the right way to handle my withdrawal strategy may well differ from what you think. That's OK.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Most people use buckets during accumulation. They have a special pile of money that they call the emergency fund (bucket 1) and then a portfolio (bucket 2) for retirement. It just isn't a very interesting problem when you have cash coming in every month to pay the bills. Some people do argue that this is bad and that you should get rid of the bucket and shove the money into the portfolio but again it is a minor difference. Keeping 6 months in cash just doesn't move the needle much.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:09 pm
Sigh, have you noted anyone recommending a Bucket Strategy during Accumulation? When I was working, I would never have considered that structure.
Decumulation is a very different world, with different risks and different goals.
WoodSpinner
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
A difference is that there is no algorithm working to dictate the movement of money in and out of the buckets. In retirement a buckets plan looks like a pipeline of money "downhill" toward being spent. I don't think a person working and saving would have a set of levels and move money progressively upward from cash to bonds to stocks as one's earnings come in.randomguy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:51 amMost people use buckets during accumulation. They have a special pile of money that they call the emergency fund (bucket 1) and then a portfolio (bucket 2) for retirement. It just isn't a very interesting problem when you have cash coming in every month to pay the bills. Some people do argue that this is bad and that you should get rid of the bucket and shove the money into the portfolio but again it is a minor difference. Keeping 6 months in cash just doesn't move the needle much.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:09 pm
Sigh, have you noted anyone recommending a Bucket Strategy during Accumulation? When I was working, I would never have considered that structure.
Decumulation is a very different world, with different risks and different goals.
WoodSpinner
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Agreed, guess I never thought of my Emergency Fund as a bucket— was fortunate that I never really needed to use it.randomguy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:51 amMost people use buckets during accumulation. They have a special pile of money that they call the emergency fund (bucket 1) and then a portfolio (bucket 2) for retirement. It just isn't a very interesting problem when you have cash coming in every month to pay the bills. Some people do argue that this is bad and that you should get rid of the bucket and shove the money into the portfolio but again it is a minor difference. Keeping 6 months in cash just doesn't move the needle much.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:09 pm
Sigh, have you noted anyone recommending a Bucket Strategy during Accumulation? When I was working, I would never have considered that structure.
Decumulation is a very different world, with different risks and different goals.
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
How is that different? In accumulation your money flows up hill. You fill the emergency fund and then excess money goes into the portfolio. Same thing in reverse. Normally you just skip the no-op step of sticking money in the EF and taking it out immediately. You know just like how there is no need to take your divs, stick it in a cash bucket, and then spend it. You can just spend it.dbr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:24 amA difference is that there is no algorithm working to dictate the movement of money in and out of the buckets. In retirement a buckets plan looks like a pipeline of money "downhill" toward being spent. I don't think a person working and saving would have a set of levels and move money progressively upward from cash to bonds to stocks as one's earnings come in.randomguy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:51 amMost people use buckets during accumulation. They have a special pile of money that they call the emergency fund (bucket 1) and then a portfolio (bucket 2) for retirement. It just isn't a very interesting problem when you have cash coming in every month to pay the bills. Some people do argue that this is bad and that you should get rid of the bucket and shove the money into the portfolio but again it is a minor difference. Keeping 6 months in cash just doesn't move the needle much.WoodSpinner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:09 pm
Sigh, have you noted anyone recommending a Bucket Strategy during Accumulation? When I was working, I would never have considered that structure.
Decumulation is a very different world, with different risks and different goals.
WoodSpinner
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Sorry for the rough presentation. It is a word conversion from a pdf -from the Journal of Financial Planning September 2013. I did as much as I could to clean it up. You can find the originap paper , The Benefits of a Cash Reserve Strategy in Retirement Distribution Planning at https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.ude ... anning.pdf
The Benefits of a Cash Reserve Strategy in Retirement Distribution Planning
by Shaun Pfeiffer, Ph.D.; John Salter, Ph.D., CFP®, AIFA®; and Harold Evensky, CFP®, AIF®
[Quote trimmed by oldcomputerguy. "Please limit quotations and reproductions of external materials to the minimum necessary to make your point.]
Conclusions
The primary conclusion of this study is that a two-bucket strategy incorporating cash reserves along with an IP has an impact on the probability that clients will be able to meet their retirement goals. The results suggest that the long-held financial planning belief that a portfolio should have a cash reserve to mitigate the risk of having to sell invest- ments at depressed price levels and mitigate excessive taxes and transaction costs should continue to influence retirement planning strategies. In addition, cash reserves appear to provide behavioral benefits to clients as the existence of cash reserves may increase a clients’ willingness to tolerate volatility in the IP and stick with the retirement plan during periods of high market volatility. These behavioral benefits are not quantified in this study; however, financial planning practitio- ners are encouraged to consider this when assessing the results of this study. The one-year CFR strategy plan survival rate, or the percentage of retirement plans that remain funded, at the 30-year horizon are up to as much as 6 percentage points higher than the RDCA plan survival rates. The survival advantage of the CFR is robust to different tax and transaction cost assumptions as previously outlined. It is acknowledged that practitioners realize the impact of taxes, transaction costs, volatility, and behavioral attributes of clients. That said, existing retirement research provides limited insight on how these realties impact distribution planning choices. The results of this study, in conjunc- tion with the potentially powerful role of the behavioral benefits attributable
to cash, support the use of cash reserves in retirement planning. Future research that quantifies the behavioral benefits of cash reserves would provide additional insight to practitioners.
The Benefits of a Cash Reserve Strategy in Retirement Distribution Planning
by Shaun Pfeiffer, Ph.D.; John Salter, Ph.D., CFP®, AIFA®; and Harold Evensky, CFP®, AIF®
[Quote trimmed by oldcomputerguy. "Please limit quotations and reproductions of external materials to the minimum necessary to make your point.]
Conclusions
The primary conclusion of this study is that a two-bucket strategy incorporating cash reserves along with an IP has an impact on the probability that clients will be able to meet their retirement goals. The results suggest that the long-held financial planning belief that a portfolio should have a cash reserve to mitigate the risk of having to sell invest- ments at depressed price levels and mitigate excessive taxes and transaction costs should continue to influence retirement planning strategies. In addition, cash reserves appear to provide behavioral benefits to clients as the existence of cash reserves may increase a clients’ willingness to tolerate volatility in the IP and stick with the retirement plan during periods of high market volatility. These behavioral benefits are not quantified in this study; however, financial planning practitio- ners are encouraged to consider this when assessing the results of this study. The one-year CFR strategy plan survival rate, or the percentage of retirement plans that remain funded, at the 30-year horizon are up to as much as 6 percentage points higher than the RDCA plan survival rates. The survival advantage of the CFR is robust to different tax and transaction cost assumptions as previously outlined. It is acknowledged that practitioners realize the impact of taxes, transaction costs, volatility, and behavioral attributes of clients. That said, existing retirement research provides limited insight on how these realties impact distribution planning choices. The results of this study, in conjunc- tion with the potentially powerful role of the behavioral benefits attributable
to cash, support the use of cash reserves in retirement planning. Future research that quantifies the behavioral benefits of cash reserves would provide additional insight to practitioners.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
In 33 years of systematic accumulation I didn't ever spend any time worrying about buying stocks at record highs. Likewise in retirement I don't worry about selling stocks at levels lower than some recent high. That's just an example of a cognitive bias called anchoring. If you were a lifetime saver and investor you aren't selling stocks at a loss in retirement because your average cost is a small fraction of current value.
And the biggie for those with a balanced portfolio that maintain a fixed asset allocation in retirement - you aren't selling stocks in down markets even if you are taking modest periodic distributions proportionally from asset classes. You are in fact net buyers of stocks in bear markets because your rebalancing from fixed income to equity is substantially greater than the modest portion of withdrawals taken from equity for retirement income.
Per the references below , cash buckets to spend from in "down" markets s a demonstrated suboptimal withdrawal approach in retirement that reduces returns and thus increases the risk of portfolio failure in retirement. Not to mention the messy details of trying to decide when a down market starts, when it ends, how far out of balance are you going to allow your portfolio to get as you spend only from fixed income, deciding when an up market starts, when and how fast do you refill the cash bucket ect. Emotions and hunches are going to guide those decisions with predictable results.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3274499
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-bu ... 2019-02-12
And the biggie for those with a balanced portfolio that maintain a fixed asset allocation in retirement - you aren't selling stocks in down markets even if you are taking modest periodic distributions proportionally from asset classes. You are in fact net buyers of stocks in bear markets because your rebalancing from fixed income to equity is substantially greater than the modest portion of withdrawals taken from equity for retirement income.
Per the references below , cash buckets to spend from in "down" markets s a demonstrated suboptimal withdrawal approach in retirement that reduces returns and thus increases the risk of portfolio failure in retirement. Not to mention the messy details of trying to decide when a down market starts, when it ends, how far out of balance are you going to allow your portfolio to get as you spend only from fixed income, deciding when an up market starts, when and how fast do you refill the cash bucket ect. Emotions and hunches are going to guide those decisions with predictable results.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3274499
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-bu ... 2019-02-12
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.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Hevensky wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:28 pm Sorry for the rough presentation. It is a word conversion from a pdf -from the Journal of Financial Planning September 2013. I did as much as I could to clean it up. You can find the originap paper , The Benefits of a Cash Reserve Strategy in Retirement Distribution Planning at https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.ude ... anning.pdf
From the paper:
The strategy survival rates for a 4 percent real withdrawal rate at year 30 indicate that the RDCA strategy leads to less than a 1 percentage point increase in survival rates relative to the CFR strategy
The rest of the paper is basically showing why high transaction fees are bad..
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
According to this article by Kitces
https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-se ... -approach/
the key is you can't just spend from the applicable bucket based on market performance you also have to buy equities if they are so far down you can't rebalance through spending alone. In my case, I have an increasing equities glide path based on a G Fund first approach. If equities continue to fall I may need to spend G Fund AND buy equities to stay on the increasing equities path. As long as rebalancing occurs the bucket and AA approach will yield similar results, according to the linked article.
TLDR: If you don't rebalance when equities are down you're going to have a bad time.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-se ... -approach/
the key is you can't just spend from the applicable bucket based on market performance you also have to buy equities if they are so far down you can't rebalance through spending alone. In my case, I have an increasing equities glide path based on a G Fund first approach. If equities continue to fall I may need to spend G Fund AND buy equities to stay on the increasing equities path. As long as rebalancing occurs the bucket and AA approach will yield similar results, according to the linked article.
TLDR: If you don't rebalance when equities are down you're going to have a bad time.
1/3rd VTWAX, 1/3rd Wellington, 1/3rd G Fund |
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
- typical.investor
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
That's a great article and worth reading especially the analysis reasoning that equities were needed for inflation protection. By not rebalancing, the there was not inflation protection from the nominal bonds.L84SUPR wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:18 pm According to this article by Kitces
https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-se ... -approach/
the key is you can't just spend from the applicable bucket based on market performance you also have to buy equities if they are so far down you can't rebalance through spending alone. In my case, I have an increasing equities glide path based on a G Fund first approach. If equities continue to fall I may need to spend G Fund AND buy equities to stay on the increasing equities path. As long as rebalancing occurs the bucket and AA approach will yield similar results, according to the linked article.
TLDR: If you don't rebalance when equities are down you're going to have a bad time.
Since the portfolio started in '66, it went through high inflation. It'd be interesting to see how it did with TIPs the G Fund and no rebalancing.
- NearlyRetired
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:56 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
From the summary...L84SUPR wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:18 pm According to this article by Kitces
https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-se ... -approach/
the key is you can't just spend from the applicable bucket based on market performance you also have to buy equities if they are so far down you can't rebalance through spending alone. In my case, I have an increasing equities glide path based on a G Fund first approach. If equities continue to fall I may need to spend G Fund AND buy equities to stay on the increasing equities path. As long as rebalancing occurs the bucket and AA approach will yield similar results, according to the linked article.
TLDR: If you don't rebalance when equities are down you're going to have a bad time.
Does this mean then, that Lifestrategy funds which re-balance daily are the way to go?The key, as it turns out, is that rebalancing alone already has an astonishingly powerful effect to help avoid unfavorable liquidations, as the process systematically ensures that the investments that are up (the most) are sold, and the ones that are down (the most) are actually bought instead! Which means in the end, we may not be giving rebalancing nearly the credit it deserves to accomplish similar – or even better – results than buckets and decision rules alone, and that such approaches are better purposed as explanatory tools for clients than actual systems for generating cash flows in retirement!
To err is to be human, to really mess up, use a computer
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
If they moved to 3-5 years in cash and had some fancy rules on when to drain and refill the cash buckets, you would get a little more deviation. But not much.L84SUPR wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:18 pm According to this article by Kitces
https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-se ... -approach/
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Feel like a lot of people jumped into the discussion with their own thoughts without referencing the article. The examples given between SAA and BS are in the magnitude of thousands of dollars off of each other. The BS is unable to “reliably and consistently” beat a SAA strategy? Guess what? That means the SAA strategy has the same problem relative to the BS. There’s an acknowledgement that one method might outperform the other based simply on the market you’re retiring in, but it still seems the magnitude of dollars mentioned in the article is very small - and that is referencing a down market and recovery, so performance over the course of multiple years.And I want to stress when I say that the Bucket Strategy is ineffective, I don’t mean that it is so bad that you shall never employ it. I could have reshuffled some of the annual returns to construct an example where the BS outperforms SAA by $1,000, like in Fritz’s example above. The bucket approach is unable to beat the SAA reliably and consistently. You can still use it, but don’t expect miraculous results in hedging against Sequence Risk. And absolutely don’t expect the Bucket Strategy to offer full SoRR Insurance.
A quote from Fritz in the article:
In reality, there is very little difference between the two approaches. In my mind, it simply comes down to the preference of the retiree and which concept is more easily understood in their mind, along with the comfort of knowing you can target whatever size cash bucket best suits your risk tolerance. I find it easy to explain the bucket concept to my wife (as do my readers, based on comments received), and that’s a yardstick that matters to me.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
My thoughts exactly!mhop wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:10 pmFeel like a lot of people jumped into the discussion with their own thoughts without referencing the article. The examples given between SAA and BS are in the magnitude of thousands of dollars off of each other. The BS is unable to “reliably and consistently” beat a SAA strategy? Guess what? That means the SAA strategy has the same problem relative to the BS. There’s an acknowledgement that one method might outperform the other based simply on the market you’re retiring in, but it still seems the magnitude of dollars mentioned in the article is very small - and that is referencing a down market and recovery, so performance over the course of multiple years.And I want to stress when I say that the Bucket Strategy is ineffective, I don’t mean that it is so bad that you shall never employ it. I could have reshuffled some of the annual returns to construct an example where the BS outperforms SAA by $1,000, like in Fritz’s example above. The bucket approach is unable to beat the SAA reliably and consistently. You can still use it, but don’t expect miraculous results in hedging against Sequence Risk. And absolutely don’t expect the Bucket Strategy to offer full SoRR Insurance.
A quote from Fritz in the article:In reality, there is very little difference between the two approaches. In my mind, it simply comes down to the preference of the retiree and which concept is more easily understood in their mind, along with the comfort of knowing you can target whatever size cash bucket best suits your risk tolerance. I find it easy to explain the bucket concept to my wife (as do my readers, based on comments received), and that’s a yardstick that matters to me.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Of course not. You don't need an all in one fund to be able to rebalance. What might be the effect of how frequently one rebalances is a complicated discussion. The results might depend on the details of market trends, so better sometimes and not better other times. If owning an all in one fund gets it done where the investor doesn't manage it himself, then that can be helpful. All in one funds are not necessarily the best choice for investors that have significant assets under different kinds of tax treatment.NearlyRetired wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:40 pm
Does this mean then, that Lifestrategy funds which re-balance daily are the way to go?
Things like this are never a general best choice but rather a question of best fit to a specific person and situation. Each investor has to take personal responsibility to work that out for his own case.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Not every strategy requires absolute return maximization to be considered “effective”.
- WoodSpinner
- Posts: 3505
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
Agreed, the key is what your are trying to accomplish.
For my goals, an LMP, Bucket Strategy, or a hybrid accomplishes a number of key goals — maximizing returns is not one of them.
WoodSpinner
For my goals, an LMP, Bucket Strategy, or a hybrid accomplishes a number of key goals — maximizing returns is not one of them.
WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:29 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
If an investor holds a balanced fund in a tax favored account, then the bond coupons and equity dividends will allow buying more equities shares during equity bear markets. “Bucket one” can be tapped during these times.MnD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:52 pm In 33 years of systematic accumulation I didn't ever spend any time worrying about buying stocks at record highs. Likewise in retirement I don't worry about selling stocks at levels lower than some recent high. That's just an example of a cognitive bias called anchoring. If you were a lifetime saver and investor you aren't selling stocks at a loss in retirement because your average cost is a small fraction of current value.
And the biggie for those with a balanced portfolio that maintain a fixed asset allocation in retirement - you aren't selling stocks in down markets even if you are taking modest periodic distributions proportionally from asset classes. You are in fact net buyers of stocks in bear markets because your rebalancing from fixed income to equity is substantially greater than the modest portion of withdrawals taken from equity for retirement income.
Per the references below , cash buckets to spend from in "down" markets s a demonstrated suboptimal withdrawal approach in retirement that reduces returns and thus increases the risk of portfolio failure in retirement. Not to mention the messy details of trying to decide when a down market starts, when it ends, how far out of balance are you going to allow your portfolio to get as you spend only from fixed income, deciding when an up market starts, when and how fast do you refill the cash bucket ect. Emotions and hunches are going to guide those decisions with predictable results.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3274499
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-bu ... 2019-02-12
This can also be done in taxable accounts, of course.
Retirement is best when you have a lot to live on, and a lot to live for. * None of what I post is investment advice.* |
FIRE'd July 2023
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
True.Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:45 pmIt's relative, depending on what age you want to retire, you may need more, you may need less or you may have just enough. A 25x living expenses will likely carry you as far as 30 years or longer, but most folks statistically run out of life before they run out of money.TinyHouse wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:29 pmThat sounds really nice, not all of us are that fortunate! For those of us planning 25 to 30x our living expenses invested for retirement, or just don’t want to work longer than we have to, we tend to pay attention to these things and try to optimize.Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:20 pm
Have a large enough portfolio and me holding cash, bonds or equities in the bucket really doesn't matter.
I'd like to see ERN or any other source produce a study of real-life occurrences of portfolio depletion that is actually tied back to a real person(s) or subset of groups which is directly attributable to portfolio construction rather than life events for which very few of us could ever actually defuse all of those risks. Otherwise these hypotheticals based on past time periods are of little value especially when producing click-bait claims that this strategy or that strategy is ineffective. While they certainly generate discussion, they also create alot of unwarranted and unneeded anxiety for many.
It is also true that any number of personal hardships that are completely unpredictable could have a very real effect on running out of money eventually, especially if the negative (i.e., expensive) personal event happened in early retirement during a downturn in both stock market index funds and bond market index funds.
-
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:52 am
- retireIn2020
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:13 pm
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
That is a good video.stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 6:52 pm Great discussion on this here:
https://youtu.be/-ZN20JTfRVo
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abide
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I had to run my bucket strat against a constant AA strat in portfolio visualizer during the lost decade & compare to get a better understanding how my bucket strat was pointless. That helped me get over the extra psychological comfort I got from that strat. All the studies didn't do it for me because there is a bit of uniqueness to every bucket strat and that kept me in denial.
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
I use a hybrid strategy. I get to decide where I spend money from based on what I am experiencing daily. So far I haven't let me down. And unlike many of the posters in this thread, I am on 0 income other than what I spend from my portfolio(62 hoping to defer SS until 70). Retired in 11/2020 due to the pandemic.
The main thing I wanted to say is many of you are underestimating how you will feel once the paychecks stop( and trust me, I'm not driven by emotions, but it is a funny feeling). I never thought I would be a 60/30/10 investor, but here I am. I didn't call my strategy a bucket strategy, but it is easy enough to call it that, with an equity bucket, a bond bucket, and cash equivalents bucket.
Since my work career ended 2 to 5 years sooner than expected into a market decline, I don't have a huge portfolio compared to expenses. At least by Boglehead standards. It "should" be enough outside of Black Swan events. I say that to point these things matter to me. I have been studying VPW, the best way to build a bridge to SS at 70, etc.
The main thing I wanted to say is many of you are underestimating how you will feel once the paychecks stop( and trust me, I'm not driven by emotions, but it is a funny feeling). I never thought I would be a 60/30/10 investor, but here I am. I didn't call my strategy a bucket strategy, but it is easy enough to call it that, with an equity bucket, a bond bucket, and cash equivalents bucket.
Since my work career ended 2 to 5 years sooner than expected into a market decline, I don't have a huge portfolio compared to expenses. At least by Boglehead standards. It "should" be enough outside of Black Swan events. I say that to point these things matter to me. I have been studying VPW, the best way to build a bridge to SS at 70, etc.
"Confusion has its cost" - Crosby, Stills and Nash
- FreddieFIRE
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:49 am
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
TLDR.
I have two buckets. An LMP bucket of 100% safe, inflation protected assets (TIPS) to keep DW and I out of the poor house. An RP bucket to benefit heirs and charity. I never pour anything from one bucket into the other (i.e. rebalance) and it is quite likely the simplest/laziest portfolio known to man. How is that "ineffective?"
I have two buckets. An LMP bucket of 100% safe, inflation protected assets (TIPS) to keep DW and I out of the poor house. An RP bucket to benefit heirs and charity. I never pour anything from one bucket into the other (i.e. rebalance) and it is quite likely the simplest/laziest portfolio known to man. How is that "ineffective?"
A house and a job. Once the American dream. Two things I'll never again have. Life is simple (and good).
-
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am
- Location: West coast of Florida, near Champa Bay !
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
My bold.MnD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:52 pm In 33 years of systematic accumulation I didn't ever spend any time worrying about buying stocks at record highs. Likewise in retirement I don't worry about selling stocks at levels lower than some recent high. That's just an example of a cognitive bias called anchoring. If you were a lifetime saver and investor you aren't selling stocks at a loss in retirement because your average cost is a small fraction of current value.
<snip>
Exactly!
While I might sell a stock holding for less than the highest amount it may have fetched recently or historically, about the only shares I could possibly sell for an actual loss would be those shares that were purchased via my dividend reinvestment. The costs of those shares would track the stock as it climbs or falls. But, though I usually reinvest my dividends, the number of shares purchased via dividend reinvestment is very small.
I sold some Microsoft shares last March for $310/sh. I sold some later in the year for $240.25/sh.
My last buy of MSFT was for $257.02/sh. I am not anchored on the $310 price, or the $257.02/sh. I am anchored on the price I paid for 100 shares @ $51.67 and 100 shares@ $49.29.
So I can sell something for a price less than I might have recently paid, but it is very likely that when the entire holding history is examined I didn't sell for a loss overall.
What I do know is that I feel no need to hold cash in a bucket to avoid selling stocks when the market is down. Likelihood of selling for a loss would be very small, at least based on the way I "anchor."
Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven then I shall not go." - Mark Twain
Re: The “Bucket Strategy” is ineffective (ERN)
FreddieFIRE wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:42 pm TLDR.
I have two buckets. An LMP bucket of 100% safe, inflation protected assets (TIPS) to keep DW and I out of the poor house. An RP bucket to benefit heirs and charity. I never pour anything from one bucket into the other (i.e. rebalance) and it is quite likely the simplest/laziest portfolio known to man. How is that "ineffective?"
It is helpful to read at least a little bit on the topic of discussion.
You are using a completely different definition of "bucket strategy" than the OP referenced article, and most of the discussion in this thread. So, it should not be surprising that your experience is different.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.