Author Topic: Stop worrying about the 4% rule  (Read 344757 times)

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6975
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1400 on: February 27, 2018, 02:15:49 PM »
I bet the story you heard was based on was this study: "The Startling Benefit of Cardiology Meetings." A really clever approach to analyzing the data and a fascinating -- if rather worrying -- result.

Quote
Sixty percent of patients with cardiac arrest who were admitted to a teaching hospital during the days when cardiologists were at scientific meetings died within 30 days, compared to 70 percent of patients who were admitted on non-meeting days.

News article: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/startling-benefit-cardiology-meetings
Original article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2038979

this all sounds like data that needs to be dumped into a computer and run against algorithms to determine what optimal treatment is. i hope they are recording everything in a easily manageable way so it can be processed by machines later

PizzaSteve

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1401 on: April 03, 2018, 06:41:50 PM »
...well there's always the SciFi idea of the 'Singularity' - uploading our consciousness into a computer to live in perpetuity...

Yea, nobody wants me around forever.  Society stops evolving the moment individuals stop dying.  I loved my grandfather, but he was a born and raised a racist and the world is better off with his generation moved on.  I'm sure future generations will say something similar about me.

And besides, the singularity isn't exactly a FIRE utopia either.  Just think of all of the problems around maintaining a SWR in a virtual world.  Who's going to pay all of the maintenance workers who keep the servers running?  Where does the electricity come from, and who maintains that infrastructure?  How does asset ownership in the physical world translate into income streams in the virtual world?

Personally I think the whole idea is a hoax.  By the time we have generalist AI capable of indistinguishably reproducing my forum personality, that AI will also be capable of simultaneously reproducing every other forum member's personality too, and all of those digital representations of long-dead individuals will exist together in a hive mind.  In that situation, I think it would be pretty clear that fencing off one little personality (mine, yours, MMM's) as distinct from the others is sort of inefficiently redundant.  Why keep sol alive as a forum bot?  Just to amuse the other forum bots?  Can bots even be amused?  The hive mind would surely have to recognize that sol is kind of a dumb ass, on 99% of the possible topics of discussion, so why devote resources to letting him continue to be stupid when there are other parts of the hive mind that can do better? 

The singularity proponents want to live forever, but I'm pretty sure that digital superintelligence will have better things to do than play Renaissance Faire all day with the personalities of stupid racist dead people who are only holding the world back.
Great post! 

Our personality bots can simulate retirement and safely make 4.5% fewer posts per year until we fade away into the obscurity.
All posts are opinions of the author subject to independent verification by the reader.  No representations of fact are asserted regarding commercial products or services.

2lazy2retire

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1402 on: April 09, 2018, 08:27:11 AM »
Looks like the probability of being dead between the ages of 70 and 100 is unacceptably high...:)

Maybe if you cut back on living in your 50's/60's - there will be less chance of running out of life in your 70's/80's :)

honeyfill

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Tucson
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1403 on: April 09, 2018, 11:12:39 AM »
Looks like the probability of being dead between the ages of 70 and 100 is unacceptably high...:)

Maybe if you cut back on living in your 50's/60's - there will be less chance of running out of life in your 70's/80's :)

I've taken the opposite approach to making my money last longer than I do.  Instead of trying to make my money last longer, I've taken up smoking and drinking, this improves my chances of not running out of money before I die.   



tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1404 on: April 09, 2018, 12:36:25 PM »
Looks like the probability of being dead between the ages of 70 and 100 is unacceptably high...:)

Maybe if you cut back on living in your 50's/60's - there will be less chance of running out of life in your 70's/80's :)

I've taken the opposite approach to making my money last longer than I do.  Instead of trying to make my money last longer, I've taken up smoking and drinking, this improves my chances of not running out of money before I die.

AND it makes the time you are alive, more interesting.  Maybe not better, but definitely more interesting.
Frugalite in training.

PizzaSteve

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1405 on: April 14, 2018, 09:44:58 AM »
Some useful discussion here:

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=247050&newpost=3880684

Will not comment, but good points on understanding conclusions and limitations of Trinity study(basis for most SWR assumptions).
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 10:08:47 AM by PizzaSteve »
All posts are opinions of the author subject to independent verification by the reader.  No representations of fact are asserted regarding commercial products or services.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6565
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1406 on: April 14, 2018, 10:54:52 AM »
Noted is that study us for a 30 yr retirement, not longer and assumptions should be adjusted accordingly for longer plans (like mine :-)).

Have you read this thread?  There are thousands of words of analysis on the impacts of changing the SWR vs changing the withdrawal period, with charts and graphs, contained in the earlier pages of this very thread. Including second order analysis of the analyses.

I've found the BH forums to be incredibly helpful for people who are just starting out and trying to wrap their heads around basic concepts, but the depth of the analysis there is sometimes lacking.  There are some incredibly smart people over there, who unfortunately don't write very clearly and often muddle their insights and so the most complex analyses goes unrecognized.  Many of the nuances discussed in this thread, for example, are things I have never seen openly discussed on bogleheads.

MissNancyPryor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Northwest USA
  • The Stewardess is Flying the Plane!
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1407 on: April 24, 2018, 06:49:25 PM »
Hey MMMers, remedial question here:

Do you consider the value of your paid-for house in the net worth upon which your initial SWR is calculated?  Or do you consider it a buffer that you could convert to some cash later if needed? 

For simple math, if I have $1M net worth including a $200K house, initial 4% SWR would be $40K and I should set that as my ongoing retirement number.   

If I only consider $800K that means I should set $32K as my number, but I know I have the house on the side (growing in value hopefully) that I can tap into by downsizing or becoming a renter if I need to.

In each case I can give myself inflationary raises of 2-3% a year and should monitor things to adjust spending if shit hits the fan in the economy, so we can disregard those distractions for this question. 

Which is the traditional way to calculate things?  I realize that the ultra conservative thing to do is to not include the house and to only pull 3% as the SWR, a bulletproof method that will make my heirs very rich.  I am wondering what the 'standard' guidance is or what the original theory suggests.       

(I word-searched all 29 pages of this thread manually and hit deborah's journal a bunch of times and learned steveo is considering downsizing, but this question is not answered.  Sending up a balloon, thanks!)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7928
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1408 on: April 24, 2018, 07:14:47 PM »
1. Do you consider the value of your paid-for house in the net worth upon which your initial SWR is calculated?

2. Which is the traditional way to calculate things?
1. No, because
2. The studies from which the 4% number comes considered only stocks and bonds.

See Determining withdrawal rates using historical data and
Retirement Savings: Choosing a Withdrawal Rate That Is Sustainable.
The latter article is often called the "Trinity study" because the authors were professors of finance at Trinity University.

MissNancyPryor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Northwest USA
  • The Stewardess is Flying the Plane!
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1409 on: April 24, 2018, 09:20:26 PM »
Perfect, thanks! 

PizzaSteve

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1410 on: April 25, 2018, 12:19:30 AM »
1. Do you consider the value of your paid-for house in the net worth upon which your initial SWR is calculated?

2. Which is the traditional way to calculate things?
1. No, because
2. The studies from which the 4% number comes considered only stocks and bonds.

See Determining withdrawal rates using historical data and
Retirement Savings: Choosing a Withdrawal Rate That Is Sustainable.
The latter article is often called the "Trinity study" because the authors were professors of finance at Trinity University.
Same for me.  Housing costs are an expense, so home equity can ultimately reduce the needed stash size, as an inflation hedge, but it does not count as part of the stash for my calculations either.
All posts are opinions of the author subject to independent verification by the reader.  No representations of fact are asserted regarding commercial products or services.

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5151
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1411 on: April 25, 2018, 10:46:25 AM »
I don't count it either. You have to live somewhere and no doubt if we chose to live somewhere else we would either buy or rent (duh!), so the proceeds of selling would ultimately be used to pay for the new digs.

I also assume that when we are old we might live in a nursing home.. well, once again thats where the proceeds of the house sale would go.

Bottom line is it really isn't "real money" in the sense that it doesn't provides income upon which you can live.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7674
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1412 on: April 25, 2018, 11:28:45 AM »
ditto - with the caveat that one may consider the value of their house IF they are planning on selling it and moving (e.g. downsizing, relocating) early on in FI.  If rented out (partially or in full) that income would go into your calculations.

Thankfully simulators like cFIREsim allow you to estimate the effects of a lump-sum input (in this case the sale of a home) at any point during your retirement.  Obviously the uncertainty of how much a home might sell for should be considered.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1413 on: April 25, 2018, 05:24:10 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.


Le Barbu

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Lake Wobegon
  • We are all strong, handsome and above average
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1414 on: April 25, 2018, 06:32:27 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.

My home equity is included in my NW but not in my FI stash
"The real reason this blog exists, is simply to save the entire human race from destroying itself through overconsumption of its own habitat"

-MMM

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1415 on: April 25, 2018, 09:14:51 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.

My home equity is included in my NW but not in my FI stash

This is just semantics though. When I talk about my net worth I am stating my stash. You can definitely use home equity as part of your stash assuming you can convert that equity to investment funds - i.e. downsize your house and put the difference into your investment portfolio.

So in my case if I'm confident I will sell my house and pocket say $500k I would consider that part of my stash.

seattlecyclone

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1416 on: April 26, 2018, 02:12:34 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.

My home equity is included in my NW but not in my FI stash

This is just semantics though. When I talk about my net worth I am stating my stash. You can definitely use home equity as part of your stash assuming you can convert that equity to investment funds - i.e. downsize your house and put the difference into your investment portfolio.

So in my case if I'm confident I will sell my house and pocket say $500k I would consider that part of my stash.

I don't think there's such a thing as "just semantics." Words have meanings. "Net worth" is the sum of everything you own minus everything you owe. You may decide for whatever reason to exclude a portion of your assets from the part you expect to provide your retirement spending, in which case the "stash" is clearly a different thing from the "net worth."
I made a blog! https://seattlecyclone.com/

The Roth IRA was named after William Roth, who represented Delaware in the US senate from 1971-2001. "Roth" is a name, not an acronym. There's no need to capitalize the final three letters.

bluebelle

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 160
  • Location: Toronto
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1417 on: April 26, 2018, 03:34:20 PM »
Do you consider the value of your paid-for house in the net worth upon which your initial SWR is calculated?  Or do you consider it a buffer that you could convert to some cash later if needed? 
I include it in my total net worth, but it is not part my FI net worth (ie assets used to determine SWR).  I do factor it back in around age 90.  I know the house will get sold and I'll move into some kind of senior's condo or retirement home by then (probably sooner - since our retirement home is outside of town - depends on how soon self driving cars become a reality for the average person). 

Eucalyptus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Location: South Australia
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1418 on: April 27, 2018, 07:17:56 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.


Steveo; I think the ultimate stash back up for all us Aussie MMM's is we all sell our houses then live a life of luxury in our own little community more than 100km from the nearest "city". We can all have big non-moustachian cars to get around. Won't matter, relatively.


For me, I'm going to start FIRE much higher than 4%. The house is definitely one of the backups. I can live in a van if I have to, or just go hiking for a year. I can go back to work if I have to easily enough; I LOVE my work (I'll actually keep working, unpaid, on exactly what I want to research; that's one of my main FIRE goals), when I get to choose what I do (research). Its not hard for me to pick up small research contracts, bits of teaching, etc. My FIRE portfolio will be quite diverse, not just a 60/40 like the Trinity Studies (if i remember correctly). It will be agressive on stocks, with glidepaths to the FIRE date, and rising equity glide path after FIRE. The 4% rule doesn't scare me at all.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1419 on: April 28, 2018, 06:32:06 PM »
Your house can definitely be counted as part of your stash assuming that you are prepared to downsize within a certain time frame and you have realistic expectations of the bump to your stash of downsizing.

I live in a HCOL area. My house is probably worth 1.3 million. We could probably buy a house for anywhere between 400k - 800k. The difference could definitely be part of our stash.

In stating that at the moment I'm not including my house in my net worth because I'm not 100% sure we will move.


Steveo; I think the ultimate stash back up for all us Aussie MMM's is we all sell our houses then live a life of luxury in our own little community more than 100km from the nearest "city". We can all have big non-moustachian cars to get around. Won't matter, relatively.


For me, I'm going to start FIRE much higher than 4%. The house is definitely one of the backups. I can live in a van if I have to, or just go hiking for a year. I can go back to work if I have to easily enough; I LOVE my work (I'll actually keep working, unpaid, on exactly what I want to research; that's one of my main FIRE goals), when I get to choose what I do (research). Its not hard for me to pick up small research contracts, bits of teaching, etc. My FIRE portfolio will be quite diverse, not just a 60/40 like the Trinity Studies (if i remember correctly). It will be agressive on stocks, with glidepaths to the FIRE date, and rising equity glide path after FIRE. The 4% rule doesn't scare me at all.

Yep. I think 5% is fine for me to retire one but atm I am aiming a little lower than that but only because I want to have a high probability of making it to Super. So my plan is to get to Super which will mean that I have a 5% or lower WR and be prepared to sell the house.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1420 on: April 29, 2018, 02:02:37 AM »
Hey MMMers, remedial question here:

Do you consider the value of your paid-for house in the net worth upon which your initial SWR is calculated?  Or do you consider it a buffer that you could convert to some cash later if needed? 

For simple math, if I have $1M net worth including a $200K house, initial 4% SWR would be $40K and I should set that as my ongoing retirement number.   

If I only consider $800K that means I should set $32K as my number, but I know I have the house on the side (growing in value hopefully) that I can tap into by downsizing or becoming a renter if I need to.

In each case I can give myself inflationary raises of 2-3% a year and should monitor things to adjust spending if shit hits the fan in the economy, so we can disregard those distractions for this question. 

Which is the traditional way to calculate things?  I realize that the ultra conservative thing to do is to not include the house and to only pull 3% as the SWR, a bulletproof method that will make my heirs very rich.  I am wondering what the 'standard' guidance is or what the original theory suggests.       

(I word-searched all 29 pages of this thread manually and hit deborah's journal a bunch of times and learned steveo is considering downsizing, but this question is not answered.  Sending up a balloon, thanks!)

It's all about your required cashflow. Take whatever annual expenses you need (and that includes somewhere to live, either rent or mortgage/taxes/maintenance or airbnb/hotels).
You then target 25x that annual cash as your required 'stache, and a portfolio of mostly equities and some bonds should be able to supply that amount every year inflated for ever.

It's a lot easier in the USA because (1) you can get a low cost portfolio very easily via Vanguard, (2) US equities have proven in the past to be a great long term investment, and (3) under current tax rules in USA you can pull US$90k /yr from long term capital gains and dividends and pay ZERO federal tax.

The equity in your house does count as a part of your net worth [assets minus liabilities], but does not count as a part of your 'stache for 4% purposes. It may reduce your required expenses (if you own the house, hey, no mortgage! Somewhere to live!), but it doesn't generate income, so you can't use it for your 4% calculation. If you want to downsize and thus turn some home equity equity into extra 'stache, great!



Mr. Mark

$25 free for your hotel stays by using this link to join  Booking.com https://www.booking.com/s/27_8/ef1fdaad

DreamFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 468
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1421 on: April 29, 2018, 08:28:05 PM »
Hey MMMers, remedial question here:
(3) under current tax rules in USA you can pull US$90k /yr from long term capital gains and dividends and pay ZERO federal tax.

That's usually not the case, certainly not for a single person (I assume "Miss" implies single.)  For a single person, the 0% capital gains bracket is $0-38,600

If you had no other taxable income, you could add a $12,000 additional gains due to the standard deduction.

So, then you're up to $50600 of long term capital gains that you would pay 0% federal tax on, but ONLY if you had no other taxable income.   So $90K in capital gains would trigger taxes at the federal level.

Myself, I have to pay 15% on all my long term capital gains because I earn over $100K/yr of other income, well above the 0% capital gains tax level.

Of course, normally when selling shares that realize capital gains as opposed to dividends, the gain is only part of the amount you are pulling from the investment.  So a $30K gain, for example, from selling shares will mean you're actually pulling much more from your investment than $30K.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 08:57:11 PM by DreamFIRE »

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6975
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1422 on: April 30, 2018, 04:51:36 AM »
Dream this is a discussion during the withdrawal phase. 50.6k is more than enough for a single person as is 90k for a couple.

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
  • Location: Cincinnati
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1423 on: May 07, 2018, 07:20:36 AM »
Intercst (aka John Greaney):

"Adding rigor to the 4% rule"

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/intercstinsights.html


(Just for fun. I'm completely convinced that N = 25 x E will work just fine for us).


ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2618
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1424 on: May 07, 2018, 09:42:00 AM »
Haha
"It'll be great!"

hykue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1425 on: May 09, 2018, 12:10:18 AM »
Stocks have tended to perform better over longer time periods and should therefore provide the highest possible SWR's.

This may seem instinctively true but mathematically it's more complicated than that.  Safe Withdrawal Rates are highly influenced not only by average returns but also by annual volatility.  All things being equal, higher volatility lowers the SWR.  So two portfolios with equal average returns may have drastically different withdrawal rates based on the underlying volatility.  And sometimes portfolios with lower average returns but lower volatility can still beat stocks.  That's how you get interesting results like this:



This plots the returns and calculated SWRs of a variety of different popular lazy portfolios.  Note that the Total Stock Market has one of the highest returns but the lowest SWR!  Also note than none of the top-3 SWR portfolios have more than 40% stocks.  For a more detailed walkthrough, I'd recommend reading this.  And to see an example of a portfolio with only 40% stocks that matches the long-term returns of the stock market with much lower volatility and a much higher SWR, try this.

Mind blown. This is an awesome application of the best kind of intensive geekiness. I am in awe. Also, I am three years behind, but don't want to lose this thread. Thank you so much!

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6975
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1426 on: May 09, 2018, 06:27:42 AM »
Stocks have tended to perform better over longer time periods and should therefore provide the highest possible SWR's.

This may seem instinctively true but mathematically it's more complicated than that.  Safe Withdrawal Rates are highly influenced not only by average returns but also by annual volatility.  All things being equal, higher volatility lowers the SWR.  So two portfolios with equal average returns may have drastically different withdrawal rates based on the underlying volatility.  And sometimes portfolios with lower average returns but lower volatility can still beat stocks.  That's how you get interesting results like this:



This plots the returns and calculated SWRs of a variety of different popular lazy portfolios.  Note that the Total Stock Market has one of the highest returns but the lowest SWR!  Also note than none of the top-3 SWR portfolios have more than 40% stocks.  For a more detailed walkthrough, I'd recommend reading this.  And to see an example of a portfolio with only 40% stocks that matches the long-term returns of the stock market with much lower volatility and a much higher SWR, try this.

Mind blown. This is an awesome application of the best kind of intensive geekiness. I am in awe. Also, I am three years behind, but don't want to lose this thread. Thank you so much!

you need to take this with a grain of salt the data only goes back to 1970 this isnt data from the beginning of the markets.  Some think 1970 is sufficient to set their portfolio - i don't believe it is.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1427 on: May 09, 2018, 07:32:15 AM »
Stocks have tended to perform better over longer time periods and should therefore provide the highest possible SWR's.

This may seem instinctively true but mathematically it's more complicated than that.  Safe Withdrawal Rates are highly influenced not only by average returns but also by annual volatility.  All things being equal, higher volatility lowers the SWR.  So two portfolios with equal average returns may have drastically different withdrawal rates based on the underlying volatility.  And sometimes portfolios with lower average returns but lower volatility can still beat stocks.  That's how you get interesting results like this:



This plots the returns and calculated SWRs of a variety of different popular lazy portfolios.  Note that the Total Stock Market has one of the highest returns but the lowest SWR!  Also note than none of the top-3 SWR portfolios have more than 40% stocks.  For a more detailed walkthrough, I'd recommend reading this.  And to see an example of a portfolio with only 40% stocks that matches the long-term returns of the stock market with much lower volatility and a much higher SWR, try this.

Mind blown. This is an awesome application of the best kind of intensive geekiness. I am in awe. Also, I am three years behind, but don't want to lose this thread. Thank you so much!

you need to take this with a grain of salt the data only goes back to 1970 this isnt data from the beginning of the markets.  Some think 1970 is sufficient to set their portfolio - i don't believe it is.

Yep. I agree.

Be aware by being from 1970 it also takes in the transition from gold standard to market priced gold, so the back tested gold portfolios - such as the PP and 'golden butterfly' - do a lot better than I think they should (because the US coming off the gold standard was a one off event).

But the issue of volatility reducing SWR is a really great point.
Mr. Mark

$25 free for your hotel stays by using this link to join  Booking.com https://www.booking.com/s/27_8/ef1fdaad

hykue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1428 on: May 15, 2018, 11:38:56 PM »
Oh absolutely do worry!

Just find one best home in your calculations for each terrible thing which could possibly go wrong. Then if you're tempted to worry about it somewhere else and correct for the same risk a second time, just remember: "Hey I've taken into account (radical healthcare inflation/the odds of living to 120/a big uptick in inflation/minor nuclear war/the odds I'll start a harem at 85 and having to send a dozen kids to college when I'm in my early 100s) in my math already."

Literally loled :)

hykue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stop worrying about the 4% rule
« Reply #1429 on: May 16, 2018, 02:20:16 AM »
Stocks have tended to perform better over longer time periods and should therefore provide the highest possible SWR's.

This may seem instinctively true but mathematically it's more complicated than that.  Safe Withdrawal Rates are highly influenced not only by average returns but also by annual volatility.  All things being equal, higher volatility lowers the SWR.  So two portfolios with equal average returns may have drastically different withdrawal rates based on the underlying volatility.  And sometimes portfolios with lower average returns but lower volatility can still beat stocks.  That's how you get interesting results like this:



This plots the returns and calculated SWRs of a variety of different popular lazy portfolios.  Note that the Total Stock Market has one of the highest returns but the lowest SWR!  Also note than none of the top-3 SWR portfolios have more than 40% stocks.  For a more detailed walkthrough, I'd recommend reading this.  And to see an example of a portfolio with only 40% stocks that matches the long-term returns of the stock market with much lower volatility and a much higher SWR, try this.

Mind blown. This is an awesome application of the best kind of intensive geekiness. I am in awe. Also, I am three years behind, but don't want to lose this thread. Thank you so much!

you need to take this with a grain of salt the data only goes back to 1970 this isnt data from the beginning of the markets.  Some think 1970 is sufficient to set their portfolio - i don't believe it is.

Yep. I agree.

Be aware by being from 1970 it also takes in the transition from gold standard to market priced gold, so the back tested gold portfolios - such as the PP and 'golden butterfly' - do a lot better than I think they should (because the US coming off the gold standard was a one off event).

But the issue of volatility reducing SWR is a really great point.

Yes, thank you! I won't run out and set a portfolio based on this alone, I just had never managed follow my doubts about volatlity to any logical conclusion. This helped!