Author Topic: 50-60 year retirements - anyone have the numbers for withdrawal/success rates?  (Read 55098 times)

Cheddar Stacker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3700
  • Age: 45
  • Location: USA
Out of curiosity, how much cash is in your AA?  I'm often ambivalent about dry powder vs. lump sum investing.

You don't necessarily need cash or dry powder to be well positioned. Maybe you have rental income. Maybe you have a pension. Maybe you have an annuity. All of these things (and I'm sure many others) can generate a lot of cash during a down market to invest when values are depressed.

Another Reader

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5327
Not enough in 2009-2012, and too much today, as I can't really develop a lot of enthusiasm for buying what all looks to me to be overpriced.  People say "cash is trash" because so much of it is out there with nothing to do right now.  My view is that the liquidity is going to come pouring out of the system at some point and cash will become a lot more valuable and a lot more useful.  When?  I don't know, and neither does anyone else.  Right now, I would rather take the risk of waiting than the risk of substantial losses on new purchases when the liquidity bubble deflates. 

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
This may not be optimal, but I think of my assets in terms of the portfolio that is providing 40k via 4% SWR and the excess.  For me to have a chance of success, that million dollars has to be invested (80/20, in my case).  Cash would not help.  But I also have excess, and I do keep some of this in cash.  As the Bogleheads say, with this excess, I have assessed my willingness, need, and ability to take risk and decided I don't have any of these for this excess funds.  I sleep better at night knowing I have things like cash, TIPS, and munis that I can access before needing to touch the million dollar principal, due to going OMY...  But when I ER, I will draw from the million and hopefully invest this excess into equities if TSHTF
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 02:29:06 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Out of curiosity, how much cash is in your AA?  I'm often ambivalent about dry powder vs. lump sum investing.

At the risk of rehashing another version of the debate that raged earlier in this thread, if, by "dry powder," you mean cash that you hold pending deployment towards other assets once those other assets have become cheap enough according to [insert your preferred criteria here] (rather than according to a predetermined recurring periodic internal), then what you are referring to is also known as "market timing."

I vote for lump sum investing all the way.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Out of curiosity, how much cash is in your AA?  I'm often ambivalent about dry powder vs. lump sum investing.

You don't necessarily need cash or dry powder to be well positioned. Maybe you have rental income. Maybe you have a pension. Maybe you have an annuity. All of these things (and I'm sure many others) can generate a lot of cash during a down market to invest when values are depressed.
From my experience, dry powder was really helpful, to smooth the decline (cash keeps its value, money markets were a bit shakey).  Income is nice for ongoing needs, but it's tough to throw that money at a falling market.  I used my dry powder too early in 2009 and saw a further 20% decline but held on since it was all long term anyway.  The piece I'm struggling with now is how disciplined I'll be if I only have dividends and interest, but those cover half the income unless the yield declines further.

clifp

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 890
[
Not offended, just interested to see if anyone had any specific counter argument that could convince me 4% is 'more than good enough' and I should hit the couch before the end of the year.  It seems like the general consensus from those that are working is that they are telling themselves that 4% (or higher) is good enough (makes RE seem nearer I guess).  But when you get to that number, are you really going to walk out the door that day, especially if you suddenly got there based on a 30% market gain the year before.  And, if that happened, maybe one year (or less) gets you to 3%?  The math is in your favor when you hit your number - regardless of your saving rate, another 30% equity gain gets you from 4% to 3% SWR without breaking a sweat.  I know 'life energy' is important, but at 40 y.o. I'm not staring at the precipice of decrepitude, I'll just be really pissed off to be a healthy 70 y.o. with nothing but reduced SS as my 'slow travel' budget.  I feel a little stuck in my OMY, but feel that for a little more clarity on where I stand, it is a small price to pay compared to the 18 previous years that got me to the 4% number.

I guess I'll provide a counter argument. I don't think a 40 year should count on withdrawing 4% since he faces a 50 year retirement.  4% SWR for a 40 year retirement give only a 85% success rate in FIRECalc and would be even lower for a 50 year cycle or a 50/50 portfolio.  I also think the near record low interest rates, and the near record (S&P needs to hit 2050 for inflation adjusted high) level stock market all contribute for sensible reasons to be more conservative than the 4% SWR.

On the other hand I do think you can place lower limit with a high degree of confidence.  For instance if you built a 50 year tips ladder (now they don't have 50 year TIPs bonds so 20 years worth of 30 year TIPs) at 1.12% for 30 you'd have a real return of almost 1%.  You liquidate 2% of your principal each year add to it 1/2 (because the principal is being reduced) of 1% real return that gives you a minimum  2.5% withdrawal.  For equity investing a modest amount of international stocks brings the dividend yield to 2%.  If you assume that both the principal and income will keep up with inflation, selling 2% of the shares you own each year plus spending the dividends gives you (a somewhat lumpy) 2% principal + 1/2 of the 2% dividend or a 3% SWR  .

So using for instance 60/40 AA gives you 3%*60%+ 2.5% * 40%= 2.8%.

But as I said earlier as much as possible I think it is wise to pay special attention to the income your asset produce rather than the value of the asset. SPY increased its distribution 8% YOY in 2013, I feel very confident increasing my spending by that 8% amount. It is lot more conservative than increasing my spending by some fraction (2.5-4%) of the 32% increase in value of SPY shares.


secondcor521

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5528
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
...

I can reliably get 8-10% or more return after reserves, vacancies, etc., and feel comfortable living on most of that (so, say, a 6% yield on the market value, 50% higher than a 4% SWR would allow).

Sincere questions:

You've probably mentioned it somewhere before, but what amount of leverage do you employ on your rental property portfolio?

Followup:  How do you account for the risk of the leverage?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
...

I can reliably get 8-10% or more return after reserves, vacancies, etc., and feel comfortable living on most of that (so, say, a 6% yield on the market value, 50% higher than a 4% SWR would allow).

Sincere questions:

You've probably mentioned it somewhere before, but what amount of leverage do you employ on your rental property portfolio?

Followup:  How do you account for the risk of the leverage?

Right now my LTV on my portfolio is about 33% (i.e. imagine you bought all my properties and put a down payment of 66%, and had a 33% loan).  Wish it was higher, actually, but most of the debt I can get now is commerical, shorter term and higher interest.  I want more long term, fixed, low rate debt.  :P

There's not that much risk, if it's managed correctly.  If my P&I payment is $300, and rents are 1000.. even if the economy is bad and I have to drop rents a hundred or two (extremely unlikely that it would be that much) to avoid a vacancy, I can do that.  I'm not going to be cash flow negative, even in a tough situation.  I won't lose my property to the bank.

Like I mentioned in another thread:
Quote
My current gross rents are just above $8,800 monthly, with monthly mortgage payments (P&I) of just under $1,500.

My FIRE goal is to have about $19,260 gross rents monthly, with monthly mortgage payments (P&I) of about $3,750, though that could change based on some cash out refinancing options I've been looking into (if it did change from what's stated here, it'd change to more in mortgage payments, but way more gross offsetting it).

(Emphasis added for this post.)

So, IDK, maybe that seems like a lot of risk to you, maybe not, but I'm not sweating it at all.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 08:31:31 PM by arebelspy »
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

electriceagle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
Isn't all of this baked into the 4% SWR though?  If the market just had a severe down turn, and you are still able to safely withdraw 4%, then you will likely end up with a portfolio much higher than 25x your expenses when you die.  If you retire at the top of the market and follow the 4% rule, and a crash immediately follows, you should still squeak by.  Isn't that what the S in SWR stands for?

C) Most of those failures were FIRE then crash situations.

Therefore people tend to look at those things and say well how do you mitigate that?

You mitigate the "FIRE then crash" situation by going back to work. If you need to go back to work a little while after FIRE, it shouldn't be too hard as you have recent working-for-others experience to put on your resume.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Isn't all of this baked into the 4% SWR though?  If the market just had a severe down turn, and you are still able to safely withdraw 4%, then you will likely end up with a portfolio much higher than 25x your expenses when you die.  If you retire at the top of the market and follow the 4% rule, and a crash immediately follows, you should still squeak by.  Isn't that what the S in SWR stands for?

C) Most of those failures were FIRE then crash situations.

Therefore people tend to look at those things and say well how do you mitigate that?

You mitigate the "FIRE then crash" situation by going back to work. If you need to go back to work a little while after FIRE, it shouldn't be too hard as you have recent working-for-others experience to put on your resume.

For some people that is true, for others it is not. Don't presume it is a valid solution for everyone.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
You mitigate the "FIRE then crash" situation by going back to work. If you need to go back to work a little while after FIRE, it shouldn't be too hard as you have recent working-for-others experience to put on your resume.
For some people that is true, for others it is not. Don't presume it is a valid solution for everyone.
Or, more likely, most people considering FIRE have a current situation that's pretty good (salary, benefits).  Pulling the plug and having a crash means a) they are more exposed, having to pay for more essentials like medical insurance and not stashing automatically in a 401k when the market is down and b) they are looking for a job at same time people are most likely getting laid off.  Bottom line is, putting this high on your FIRE strategy is optimistic and you need to evaluate if it's a good assumption if you are FIRE'ing right when you hit your number, especially if you are hitting your number right now.  To be honest, I put 'cutting back' much higher on my fallback strategy list (a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned), but wonder if this is an option for some folks that are trying to get to ERE ASAP.   My second fallback will be to take whatever job I can find, being honest with myself that it's temporary.  I've always wanted to drive a truck and see the US...

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
You mitigate the "FIRE then crash" situation by going back to work. If you need to go back to work a little while after FIRE, it shouldn't be too hard as you have recent working-for-others experience to put on your resume.
For some people that is true, for others it is not. Don't presume it is a valid solution for everyone.
Or, more likely, most people considering FIRE have a current situation that's pretty good (salary, benefits).  Pulling the plug and having a crash means a) they are more exposed, having to pay for more essentials like medical insurance and not stashing automatically in a 401k when the market is down and b) they are looking for a job at same time people are most likely getting laid off.  Bottom line is, putting this high on your FIRE strategy is optimistic and you need to evaluate if it's a good assumption if you are FIRE'ing right when you hit your number, especially if you are hitting your number right now.  To be honest, I put 'cutting back' much higher on my fallback strategy list (a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned), but wonder if this is an option for some folks that are trying to get to ERE ASAP.   My second fallback will be to take whatever job I can find, being honest with myself that it's temporary.  I've always wanted to drive a truck and see the US...

I think it depends a lot on your work expectations. Even in the worst of the recession, I could have had a job in a few days at most. It would not have been making anything close to my current gig nor would it have included benefits. However, the whole point is to bridge a gap until assets can recover right? I know we are all a bit different but I can maintain my cushy lifestyle on $12 per hour and know I can find that easily if I had/needed/wanted to.

secondcor521

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5528
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
...
So, IDK, maybe that seems like a lot of risk to you, maybe not, but I'm not sweating it at all.

Thanks for the reply.

It doesn't really matter what my opinion is :-), but no, what you've got there doesn't seem like a lot of risk.  In your shoes I'd probably do similarly, and would probably be seeking out that longer-term lower-rate debt.

I'm very risk averse in some ways (paid off home mortgage), but have no problems with other risks (AA is 100% stocks).  Maybe the only thing I would consider in your situation or suggest as unsolicited advice would be to diversify your investments geographically or by type (multiunit, commercial, etc.).  But I'm also not an RE investor, so you probably shouldn't listen to me at all.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I'm very risk averse in some ways (paid off home mortgage), but have no problems with other risks (AA is 100% stocks).  Maybe the only thing I would consider in your situation or suggest as unsolicited advice would be to diversify your investments geographically or by type (multiunit, commercial, etc.).  But I'm also not an RE investor, so you probably shouldn't listen to me at all.

Already on it.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5345
  • Location: Texas

For 60 years it's 18/29/42.  So it looks slightly more likely that both of us will be dead than one of us alive after a 60-year time frame, and you can tweak that percentage based on what you think the odds of an economic collapse in the next 60 years are.


Was reading recently that having a kid after 33 doubled the chances of a woman living to 95 when compared to "last kid by 29".
Might be an interesting study, I'd like to check it out.
Citation?

I Googled one up for you :) Article with a link to the abstract.

http://www.boston.com/health/2014/06/25/study-women-who-give-birth-later-live-longer/Cv8BbewIVA6Cmi4DZ4KfWI/story.html


...and some more on the topic:

http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2009/05/05/women-who-give-birth-late-in-life-live-longer-%E2%80%93-and-so-do-their-brothers/


Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
You mitigate the "FIRE then crash" situation by going back to work. If you need to go back to work a little while after FIRE, it shouldn't be too hard as you have recent working-for-others experience to put on your resume.
For some people that is true, for others it is not. Don't presume it is a valid solution for everyone.
Or, more likely, most people considering FIRE have a current situation that's pretty good (salary, benefits).  Pulling the plug and having a crash means a) they are more exposed, having to pay for more essentials like medical insurance and not stashing automatically in a 401k when the market is down and b) they are looking for a job at same time people are most likely getting laid off.  Bottom line is, putting this high on your FIRE strategy is optimistic and you need to evaluate if it's a good assumption if you are FIRE'ing right when you hit your number, especially if you are hitting your number right now.  To be honest, I put 'cutting back' much higher on my fallback strategy list (a penny saved is worth more than a penny earned), but wonder if this is an option for some folks that are trying to get to ERE ASAP.   My second fallback will be to take whatever job I can find, being honest with myself that it's temporary.  I've always wanted to drive a truck and see the US...

EV2020 I agree with a lot of what you write in this thread and you seem to be in the same position I am in relation to FIRE. I originally thought 2020 was my FIRE date, but finding this site has helped move that up in time. Good luck!

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Thanks Daisy.  Another one of my favorite Boglehead sayings is 'there are many roads to Dublin'.  It's interesting to discuss the different perspectives and strategies, there is no one 'right' answer for everybody, which keeps it interesting, but I do hope we all get there, and enjoy our journey too...  All the best!

Gerard

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Location: eastern canada
    • Optimacheap
A little concerned to jump in with people who have obviously thought about this a lot more than I have, but...

1. If you have (say) 25X your yearly needs saved up (implied by the 4% SWR), and things go temporarily pear-shaped, then surely you don't care if you can't find supplementary work right away, because you have so much principal to live on? Or is the issue that that's exactly the time you don't want to be spending your savings, because they've declined in value and thus shouldn't be sold? Did I just answer my own question?

2. Presumably we're all planning to retire with assumptions of some volatility in our actual spending. Are there calculators that let us input something like "I'm gonna spend 4%, but I'm capable of dropping it to 3.2% in shitty years and happy to boost it to 4.8% in good ones"?

clifp

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 890
A little concerned to jump in with people who have obviously thought about this a lot more than I have, but...

1. If you have (say) 25X your yearly needs saved up (implied by the 4% SWR), and things go temporarily pear-shaped, then surely you don't care if you can't find supplementary work right away, because you have so much principal to live on? Or is the issue that that's exactly the time you don't want to be spending your savings, because they've declined in value and thus shouldn't be sold? Did I just answer my own question?

2. Presumably we're all planning to retire with assumptions of some volatility in our actual spending. Are there calculators that let us input something like "I'm gonna spend 4%, but I'm capable of dropping it to 3.2% in shitty years and happy to boost it to 4.8% in good ones"?

My back up plan was if my liquid net worth every dropped below X, I'd start looking for work.  Well in 2009 almost 10 years into my retirement, it dropped below X.  So here I am with decade old rusty skills, and huge gap in my resume, trying to look for work in probably the worst job market since the great depression.  At the point I realize that my reserve parachute would only serve to slow my descent from 120 MPH to 60 MPH. Fortunately by June the it rose above X and more than doubled since the bottom.

FIRECalc has nice options for spending models.  My personal favorite is the 95% rule "each year's withdrawal is the greater of 95% of last year's withdrawal or your 4% (variable) of the current portfolio as you started with".

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
There's also a good thread on Early-Retirement.org if you want another real example:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/firecalc-vs-rew-64705.html

The important bit is this: 

REWahoo (black line) retired in 2006 and his portfolio dropped below X early, so he started collecting SS at 62.  An interesting point is made by ERD50 a few posts in, that the cFire example on the front page is not really applies-to-apples.  The Red 'fail line' is a 1973 retiree with 750k.  The blue and green success lines are retirees in 1974 and 1975 also with 750k, but that would have implied they had over a million in 1973 (since their portfolio would've lost money). 

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
An interesting point is made by ERD50 a few posts in, that the cFire example on the front page is not really applies-to-apples.  The Red 'fail line' is a 1973 retiree with 750k.  The blue and green success lines are retirees in 1974 and 1975 also with 750k, but that would have implied they had over a million in 1973 (since their portfolio would've lost money).

Not necessarily.  What if person A (with a net worth of $0) received a 750k inheritance in 1973, person B in 1974, person C in 1975.  Or won the lotto.  Or whatever.

Heck, they could have had much less than 750k in 1973 but been contributing massive amounts for their last 2 years due to finally seeing the ER light.

They don't necessarily have to have had 1MM+ in 1973, all we know is what year they retired and how much they had then.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

FireYourJob

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
    • Get Rich or Die Trying!
I'll let y'all know in 2070. Bookmark this post!

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Yeah, I'm wondering why we're only talking about 60 year retirement!  2070?  When transhumanism kicks in, I'll be pretty much around forever, so how do you plan for that :)  Get ready for EV2.0

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
An interesting point is made by ERD50 a few posts in, that the cFire example on the front page is not really applies-to-apples.  The Red 'fail line' is a 1973 retiree with 750k.  The blue and green success lines are retirees in 1974 and 1975 also with 750k, but that would have implied they had over a million in 1973 (since their portfolio would've lost money).

Not necessarily.  What if person A (with a net worth of $0) received a 750k inheritance in 1973, person B in 1974, person C in 1975.  Or won the lotto.  Or whatever.

Heck, they could have had much less than 750k in 1973 but been contributing massive amounts for their last 2 years due to finally seeing the ER light.

They don't necessarily have to have had 1MM+ in 1973, all we know is what year they retired and how much they had then.
I'm also an optimist, I think I'll have an inheritance and a few unexpected upsides, but I'd like to be the blue and green lines without it.  Like people said earlier, it's just as likely that there will be an unexpected downside (health, mortality), but at 40 and FI, on the teeter-totter of life, you kinda' have a free pass to choose which side you want.  I certainly don't expect to die in the near future, so as an optimist I want to be able to use the freedom of retirement to see as much of the world as possible.  Gonna cost some money, gonna cost a lot of time...  Trying to get the balance of those two just right ;)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
My point wasn't about inheritences, at all.  That was just a convenient example.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
My point wasn't about inheritences, at all.  That was just a convenient example.
Ah, so it was about winning the lotto :)  Or just the R/B roulette wheel ;)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Mmm hmm.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16074
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Being an Australian, it interests me that:
  • Our stock market has higher average returns than the US stock market over the past x years - I can't remember off hand what it is, but let us say that we get 2% more on average
  • Despite this, our SWR rate is less than the US - 3.6% as against 3.9% (I think) - this is because of one series of bad years in the 1970s that we had, but the US didn't
  • Looking at the SWR rates for other countries, and the reasons behind them, most are worse than the US, and most are for a similar reason - there was one (singular) horrible series of bad years
As a result, I think that basing your future planning on the reasonable SWRs for the US is a little speculative, especially when things are changing. Within a short time, and certainly for most of the next 50 - 60 years
  • China is going to dominate the world market - taking over from the US in - 10? 15? years
  • Oil will be in decline (having peaked in the last few years)
  • The technology revolution has not finished, with massive changes just about to start in world transportation networks etc. and are underway in employment
These things are all going to change the economics underpinning world trade. The last 100 years are probably not a reasonable predictor of the coming 50 to 60 years. A lot of the past 100 years were about nationhood with old empires (British, Ottoman, other European, USSR/communist) breaking up. All of Africa was colonies 100 years ago, as was India.

Also, we all have longer retirement expectations than we think. In Australia we have one of the highest life expectancies in the world, not much more than the US, but it is 84 for women and 79 for men. Couples who reach retirement age can expect one member to reach 95! In Australia, even people who have a comparatively late ER of 50 should be looking toward to a 45 year retirement time frame. These figures are only a couple of years less for the US. And that doesn't include people who, like me, have relatives who have lived to 106. When I was in primary school we were told that average life expectancy was 69.

The other problem is that the last 8 years of life tend to be expensive because of declining health. These are also the years we need to have some sort of autopilot - because we may not be up to looking after our own finances when we have declining health.

I expect that the only reasonable way to deal with all this is to do as some people have suggested - live off your income. And to be flexible. And to diversify.

downtownshuter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 29
I don’t think I’ve seen this anywhere but it seemed obvious to me. I’m attaching two graphs of SWR and starting CAPE during the year of retirement.

a)   There’s an obvious relationship here. Higher market valuations mean lower SWR. This is not only supported by the data, it is perfectly logical.
b)   The past data that the 4% SWR is based on does not include periods beginning in 1999 and later, when the CAPE was at its highest. In other words, we don’t have a historical basis that covers current valuations.
c)   Waiting for a market crash to feel more comfortable with your SWR is logical, but if we do get a crash, you can probably use a 5% or higher SWR from that point forward.
d)   FYI this is the 50%/50% allocation MMM referenced in his 4% SWR post

Also I have a hunch you could improve your odds slightly by withdrawing a lump sum for the full year when the CAPE is high, but withdrawing monthly when the CAPE is low. Regardless, maintaining income and expense flexibility trumps everything.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Those are good charts, but the general idea has been discussed before, both by professionals (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286146) and on this board http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/firecalc-and-cfiresim-both-lie/

downtownshuter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 29
thanks beltim, i'm not surprised it's been covered, but then i'm not sure why some people in this thread found it illogical to wait for a lower market valuation before considering their portfolio to be sufficient for retirement and that doing so equated to market timing

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
thanks beltim, i'm not surprised it's been covered, but then i'm not sure why some people in this thread found it illogical to wait for a lower market valuation before considering their portfolio to be sufficient for retirement and that doing so equated to market timing

It's not that waiting for a lower market valuation before declaring yourself FIRE is illogical.  It's that using market valuation (whether it be CAPE or any other indicator) as a predictive tool for where the market is heading in the near-term future is the same behavior that underlies market timing.  If it is possible to look at CAPE (or any other indicator) today and predict what will happen to the market in the near-term future, then you can use CAPE (or your other indicator of choice) not only to decide whether to pull the trigger on retirement but also to time the market in your purchases and sales of securities.

That still doesn't mean it is illogical or a bad idea to hold off on pulling the retirement trigger if you believe the market is overvalued, since pushing back your retirement date will ALWAYS improve chances of portfolio success (regardless of whether the market goes up or down).

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
thanks beltim, i'm not surprised it's been covered, but then i'm not sure why some people in this thread found it illogical to wait for a lower market valuation before considering their portfolio to be sufficient for retirement and that doing so equated to market timing

It's not that waiting for a lower market valuation before declaring yourself FIRE is illogical.  It's that using market valuation (whether it be CAPE or any other indicator) as a predictive tool for where the market is heading in the near-term future is the same behavior that underlies market timing.  If it is possible to look at CAPE (or any other indicator) today and predict what will happen to the market in the near-term future, then you can use CAPE (or your other indicator of choice) not only to decide whether to pull the trigger on retirement but also to time the market in your purchases and sales of securities.

That still doesn't mean it is illogical or a bad idea to hold off on pulling the retirement trigger if you believe the market is overvalued, since pushing back your retirement date will ALWAYS improve chances of portfolio success (regardless of whether the market goes up or down).

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread, but CAPE isn't really useful for short term prediction (it's useful, but with too big a variance to be actionable). It is, however, useful for long term predictions, which is what you care about when predicting a retirement. http://greenbackd.com/2013/04/04/73-year-chart-comparing-estimated-shiller-pe-returns-to-actual-returns/