Author Topic: Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?  (Read 158653 times)

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
Honestly, I think this whole thread is pointless.

Take for example that each line from one of these FireCalc graphs is its own unique experience. I would bet each one didn't measure their success 30 years later based off how their graph lined up with other years.

So if confirmation of the definition of 'worst' is some FireCalc graph made in 30 years, fine. Just wait 30 years to see if that is right. Otherwise, the whole discussion is kind of ridiculous.

<insert some catchy phrase about not trying to predict the future>

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
Honestly, I think this whole thread is pointless.

Take for example that each line from one of these FireCalc graphs is its own unique experience. I would bet each one didn't measure their success 30 years later based off how their graph lined up with other years.

So if confirmation of the definition of 'worst' is some FireCalc graph made in 30 years, fine. Just wait 30 years to see if that is right. Otherwise, the whole discussion is kind of ridiculous.

<insert some catchy phrase about not trying to predict the future>
But that chart of mine is a gold mine for those looking to view real historical examples of SORR in considering their own risk as they "age in" to FIRE. ;) I recommend it.

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
Honestly, I think this whole thread is pointless.

Take for example that each line from one of these FireCalc graphs is its own unique experience. I would bet each one didn't measure their success 30 years later based off how their graph lined up with other years.

So if confirmation of the definition of 'worst' is some FireCalc graph made in 30 years, fine. Just wait 30 years to see if that is right. Otherwise, the whole discussion is kind of ridiculous.

<insert some catchy phrase about not trying to predict the future>
But that chart of mine is a gold mine for those looking to view real historical examples of SORR in considering their own risk as they "age in" to FIRE. ;) I recommend it.

Well, considering I just spent the last 20 minutes looking it over, you got me hooked. It is an interesting way to look at the history.

But, I mean, take the infamous 1966 example, would it not be cool to have someone tell their story? It might include, "Yeah, I bought this awesome property in north San Diego for a whopping $60k, and sold it for $3M last year before moving into assisted living" :P

I just think these SORR tell only a fraction of a story. But, to each their own.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Honestly, I think this whole thread is pointless.

Take for example that each line from one of these FireCalc graphs is its own unique experience. I would bet each one didn't measure their success 30 years later based off how their graph lined up with other years.

So if confirmation of the definition of 'worst' is some FireCalc graph made in 30 years, fine. Just wait 30 years to see if that is right. Otherwise, the whole discussion is kind of ridiculous.

<insert some catchy phrase about not trying to predict the future>

So you read through the whole thread and then went out of your way to tell us it's pointless?

Brilliant.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2206
How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

Isn't is semantics, though? If you can easily cut back spending by a significant amount for years at a go, then didn't you really have 3 or 3.5% WR and included some overstuffed idealized spending in there?

If you were relatively lean FIRE at 4%, then it's going to actually be more diffult to cut significantly, and be more impactful on day day living, and high inflation with market declines is going to jeopardize FIRE.

So if 10% or more of your budget is really only optional spending, then this conversation doesn't really apply to you at all.

There's certainly validity in what you're saying, but how would you account for it. I plan on spending thousands of dollars a year on travel. It's not fluff or idealized spending. It's very real spending that will happen.......unless the stock market tanks right out of the gate. Then, I'll spend hundreds of dollars on travel. I plan on maintaining my level of eating out at times, going to a concert here or there, buying some silly stuff occasionally I like, etc. Again, that's real spending....that I will certainly eliminate if needed.

I understand why it can seem like it's a 3% or 3.5% WR since I don't technically have to do these things, but it's also not because I'm going to do those things if I can. That's why, to me, putting in flexibility built into reducing the failure of me having to go back and find full time employment again by having higher spending goals that I don't count into the actual withdraw rate just makes sense. What wouldn't make sense would be to try to reduce my WR to 3.5% or even 3% while assuming I'll keep the ideal spending I'd like to do most of the time. I truly don't think I'm alone in the understanding that I'd either put in some spending that could be eliminated or focus on a means to get some income to mitigate SORR if I was truly bare bones lean and using the 4% rule.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2206
With those results in mind (all those series that end with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the handful that go to zero), you should not need to have all these tailored "well it's not failure if" caveats.  Just one example, you shouldn't NEED TO reduce spending during a successful FIRE.  Maybe calling it 'failure' is what is throwing everyone off, but if reducing spending is necessary, it's not 'financial independence' and if you need to work for income then it's not 'retirement', just so we can have ground rules.

Each of us will do all sorts of individualistic tweaks to our FIRE, but those details are part of a different discussion (like this one - https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/how-are-you-successfully-beating-inflation/ and this one - https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-type-of-re-person-are-you/).

Plenty of threads out there to discuss the FI / ER tweaks you plan to employ, but it is derailing this thread at this point.

Thanks for this articulation. I understand your point better, although I still don't really agree with the reduced spending aspect of it negating "financial independence". If, as you say, you see it as derailing the thread, I'll end the discussion with you here.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
I suppose it's a good sign that people are so fired up on this thread around the discussion.  We're not making progress, so I'll let it go until we get another year under our belt, but obviously the participants care enough to engage.

I feel like it's obvious, if you run cFireSim and use the default assumptions, you get your expected success %.  We don't yet know which line we are on that graph, so that is what this thread was discussing.  It's fine to start another thread about what default assumptions you want to use in your own simulation, but I'm just stating what the software uses and assuming that is the universally accepted base case.

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
@EscapeVelocity2020 Is it a universally accepted base case anymore than just assuming the 4% rule is?

I feel Iike this kind of analysis, while interesting, is taken way out of context with what actually happens if you are aiming for or consider yourself FIRE. The title itself is a little click baity using words like 'worst'.

I guess I'm just not understanding the point of the thread.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

I never said there was anything wrong with dying with zero. ??  I'm not trying to judge whether someone else's goals constitute success or failure for them.  I'm specifically acknowledging that's personal, and in fact that is essentially my point.  Also, dying with zero wouldn't be failure for me personally either.  Although in theory those last few years would probably be pretty stressful, so it wouldn't be my ideal situation, but it also wouldn't be failure *for me*.

I also didn't say reducing spending is failure.  That comment makes me think you quoted the wrong person.  I've said, repeatedly, that my plan involves reducing spending or even going back to some form of part-time paid work, and therefore I wouldn't consider either to be a failure because they are part of my plan. 

Did you mean to quote a different post?  Because I not only didn't say the things you argue against, I agree with you. 

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
@EscapeVelocity2020 Is it a universally accepted base case anymore than just assuming the 4% rule is?

I feel Iike this kind of analysis, while interesting, is taken way out of context with what actually happens if you are aiming for or consider yourself FIRE. The title itself is a little click baity using words like 'worst'.

I guess I'm just not understanding the point of the thread.

I'm assuming you haven't read this thread in its entirety.  You need to get specific around why 2021-22 isn't a bad ('the worst') time to retire.

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
@EscapeVelocity2020 Is it a universally accepted base case anymore than just assuming the 4% rule is?

I feel Iike this kind of analysis, while interesting, is taken way out of context with what actually happens if you are aiming for or consider yourself FIRE. The title itself is a little click baity using words like 'worst'.

I guess I'm just not understanding the point of the thread.

I'm assuming you haven't read this thread in its entirety.  You need to get specific around why 2021-22 isn't a bad ('the worst') time to retire.

I'll get specific, but first answer me why does it matter whether 2021-22 was or wasn't the "worst" time to retire? What implications does it have?

rantk81

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Chicago
My net worth's all time high was at the end of 2021.  Despite earning about 300K in W-2 & RSU compensation since the end of 2021, and continuing to live a mustachian lifestyle, I'm still 200K below my all-time high net worth.

I'd be 500K below my all time high NW if I had pulled the rip-cord on my FIRE-chute at that time.  Also inflation has run very in the past two years.

That would have been a _REALLY BAD_ time to retire, no 'ifs', 'ands', nor 'buts' about it.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
@EscapeVelocity2020 Is it a universally accepted base case anymore than just assuming the 4% rule is?

I feel Iike this kind of analysis, while interesting, is taken way out of context with what actually happens if you are aiming for or consider yourself FIRE. The title itself is a little click baity using words like 'worst'.

I guess I'm just not understanding the point of the thread.

I'm assuming you haven't read this thread in its entirety.  You need to get specific around why 2021-22 isn't a bad ('the worst') time to retire.

I'll get specific, but first answer me why does it matter whether 2021-22 was or wasn't the "worst" time to retire? What implications does it have?

It really doesn't matter for most of us. It's just something to talk about since this whole website is about FIRE and the 4% rule. It's kind of a big deal if one of the 4% failures may have happened last year. Historically only a handful of times has it happened in the last 120 years. It's like asking why an astronomy forum is talking about an eclipse that only happens ever 20 or 30 yrs. It's kind of a big deal in that community.

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
I was reading through this thread and I agree with this 100%. I added the bold below to highlight.

I’ve yet to meet the automatronic early retiree who was not influenced by macroeconomic conditions and who ever altered their behavior accordingly. To become ER it takes a fair degree of being aware of one’s finances and optimizing accordingly. I just don’t see that going away, ever, and having the person spend on the same things, damn the cost or the markets or newly available alternatives.

Any attempt to model retirement in this way is going to run into this problem.

This is what I've said for years.

The 4% rule is modeled off of a behaviour that no human would ever actually do.

It's very simple: if the thought of cutting back your expenses or making more money in the future is less appealing to you than working longer, then work longer. If the thought of cutting back your expenses or making more money in the future is no big deal compared to staying in your job now, then leave your job.

It's really not frickin' complicated.

Retiring in a high inflation market is like buying a house during a real estate bubble. These are lifestyle choices that are informed by math, not defined by them.

There is no such thing as a bad time to retire, there is only such thing as an inopportune time based on the individual person's life circumstances and risk factors.

If someone is like me: very comfortable cutting my spending and extremely comfortable generating more money if/when needed, then there is no such thing as a bad market time to retire. What the market does is just inform how I'll adjust.

I retired for reasons that are INFINITELY more important than whatever the hell the market was doing. And that's what really matters. What factors are making the person want to retire?

If their job is eroding their physical health and the sustainability of their marriage, then working a few more years because of what inflation is doing is FUCKING INSANE.

If they enjoy their job, can't stand the idea of cutting expenses, have a skill set that would make it hard to jump back into work, and aren't overly excited about retirement, then sure, why not work a few extra years to mitigate SORR?

Asking if a time period is "bad" to retire is like asking what time of day is best to exercise or best age to get married. It depends on the person and the myriad factors that affect them individually.

The best time to retire is when the risks of continuing to work outweigh the risks of retiring. The best time to exercise is when the person is most likely to enjoy it and keep doing it. The best age to get married is the year that they have been with the right person long enough to know they want to get married.

Retiring presents with inherent risks that are modulated by the behaviour of the markets. Continuing to work presents with inherent risks modulated by forces that are entirely individual.

All of the above risks can be hedged and mitigated in various, complex, interconnected ways.

The sum of those risks and hedges is what determines when the best date is for someone to retire.

I agree @wageslave23 that this is a forum defined by the 4% rule. However, fundamentally I oppose hyperbole in the thread title that this is the 'worst time to retire'. Maybe a better title is "Will 2021/2022 be at the bottom end of SORR 30 years from now?" Or something similar. And funny, unlike an astronomy thread that knows when the next eclipse is we won't know for 30 years if 2021/2022 had one of the worst outcomes in these models. But to Metalcat's points, whether 2021/2022 was the 'worst' time to retire for any individual is highly dependent on that individual.

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
My SORR shows there are 5 historical examples of starting years that had as poor or worse returns than 2022 where the retiree ended the 30 year period with significantly more than $0. There is only 1 historical example of failure (stash being exhausted) after 30 years. Sounds like those 2022 retirees are still in good shape. ;)

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Tennessee
So the answer is . . . maaaaaaaybe?

I'll grant you a domestic stock correction plus an international correction (with a war in Europe) plus a simultaneous bond bear market plus a historic spike in inflation; that's quite a combo!

IIRC the only failure of the 4% rule was 1966.  We don't know yet if retiring in 2000 will be a failure or not, we won't know about 2021 for a very long time indeed. 

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
My SORR shows there are 5 historical examples of starting years that had as poor or worse returns than 2022 where the retiree ended the 30 year period with significantly more than $0. There is only 1 historical example of failure (stash being exhausted) after 30 years. Sounds like those 2022 retirees are still in good shape. ;)

That sounds about right to me. Like I said, firecalc has the odds at around 75% success rate currently.  I think was is ominous here is the poor short term outlook. I would think that usually after such a bad year that equities future prospects would be looking bright.  Instead the fed is still fighting inflation and we still haven't had a recession yet. That's what makes this intriguing.  At least to some of us.

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
@OurTown actually we do know 2000 is already a failure. 1999 too. I lied. See next post.

I'll have to attach my other SORR chart for that, which is total return by 10-year period over 30 years. Both of those years have performed so poorly that they fall within the cohort of historical examples that fail 100% of the time. And that includes the decade of 2010-2019 which averaged over 11% adjusted for inflation.

@wageslave23 my answer was somewhat tongue in cheek. Someone could point out that there are numerous starting years with better returns than 2022 that failed over a 30-year period but that requires data from following years to build an average. And we don't have that yet since it hasn't happened. Hence my "it's too soon to tell" answer originally, which is the only correct answer to the OP's question. Kicking it around for a minute can still be interesting though.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2023, 02:20:57 PM by Mr. Green »

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
How do I know 2000 is already a failure? I stand corrected!

The total return after the first 20 years is less than 4%. That alone is not enough to make a determination because there are several years in the early 1960's where total return after 20 years is even less than the 2000 scenario and they still had funds left after 30 years. This is where the view of 10 year periods is helpful. The early 60s scenarios, and others, where total return is less than 4% after 20 years only succeed because they had significantly better returns during their first decade. Makes sense. Better returns early on build the stash up more and it's able to weather a bad second decade.

1912 is probably the closest example. -2.48% total return after one decade, 2.88% total return after two. 2000 was a -3.42% return after one, 3.81% total return after two. 1912 had an average return of 5.98% over the third decade. We're now 3 years into 2000's third decade and the average return over those 3 years is 2.64%.

1912 finished with almost half a million bucks. We would need some really good returns through 2029 to pull up the average and give 2020 a shot at making it. It's not impossible but I can't say that I'd bet it goes the distance.

There's a lot of really intriguing data one can glean from charts like these. Whether it's all that applicable to one's own situation is debatable. After all, these scenarios represent the person who blindly took their 4% for 30 years regardless of what happened and I think we've pretty well established that people aren't going to do that. When their stash balance gets low enough, they'll seek remedies like earning more income or reducing spending.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2023, 02:23:36 PM by Mr. Green »

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
@OurTown actually we do know 2000 is already a failure. 1999 too. I'll have to attach my other SORR chart for that, which is total return by 10-year period over 30 years. Both of those years have performed so poorly that they fall within the cohort of historical examples that fail 100% of the time. And that includes the decade of 2010-2019 which averaged over 11% adjusted for inflation.

I wonder if 2007 or 2008 are headed for failure...  but 2009 or 2010 must've been one of the best years to retire, massive 13 year bull market FTW!

My quick excel - based on 1m in the sp500, no expenses is that starting with 1m in 2007, 4% WR increased by 3% inflation every year, they would be at 1,108,853.76 with a spend of 64188.26 at a 5.8% WR, hitting a max of 7% WR in 2012. So just kinda sorta maths.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2526/sp-500-historical-annual-returns
used this for sp500 yearly returns....

For 2009 start, stache is over 3 million and a 2% WR.

I'm sure you could have done much better at excelling this than I, and I question your motivations.

While the financial advantages are clear - who had 1 million in 2009 that didnt' have it in 2007?

Because if they didn't retire in 2007 because the had only 999,999 of the 1 mil needed.....by 2009 they were down to 636.8k by 2009, not including any new money put in, so I don't see the comparison as being very useful.

Would have needed to have 1,412,500 in the sp500 in 2007 to end up with 900k by 2009, and say you had a total of 100k from new money and new money returns. and if you plug that 1.4 m+ into starting retirement in 2007, you would be at 2.225M now with a 2.88% WR.

So not too much different than waiting till 2009. The starting WR in 2007 with that level of money would be 2.83%.



Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2206
How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

I never said there was anything wrong with dying with zero. ??  I'm not trying to judge whether someone else's goals constitute success or failure for them.  I'm specifically acknowledging that's personal, and in fact that is essentially my point.  Also, dying with zero wouldn't be failure for me personally either.  Although in theory those last few years would probably be pretty stressful, so it wouldn't be my ideal situation, but it also wouldn't be failure *for me*.

I also didn't say reducing spending is failure.  That comment makes me think you quoted the wrong person.  I've said, repeatedly, that my plan involves reducing spending or even going back to some form of part-time paid work, and therefore I wouldn't consider either to be a failure because they are part of my plan. 

Did you mean to quote a different post?  Because I not only didn't say the things you argue against, I agree with you.

Sigh... I quoted the wrong post. Sorry about that!

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
There's a lot of really intriguing data one can glean from charts like these. Whether it's all that applicable to one's own situation is debatable. After all, these scenarios represent the person who blindly took their 4% for 30 years regardless of what happened and I think we've pretty well established that people aren't going to do that. When their stash balance gets low enough, they'll seek remedies like earning more income or reducing spending.

I wonder if it is a little bit like the general 25x / 4% rule is 1% of the effort towards FIRE with 90% of the expected results (because the equation is so simple), and looking at information like this is 99% rest of the effort with 10% of improving FIRE results.

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
@EscapeVelocity2020 The class of 2009 already won. They finished their first decade of FIRE averaging an annual return of 11.15% after adjusting for inflation. No prior starting year in history has come even close to failing after a first decade that good. The stash simply has too much of a head start. 2007 is not a clear case. 5.02% average return over the first decade. Very middling, as historical data points go. An exceptionally bad second decade could definitely cause a failure. Maybe even a somewhat poor second and third decade would cause a failure. The great thing about this data analysis is that it's impossible for portfolio failure to surprise you if you understand the historical data and how it compares to your own FIRE as the years and averages accumulate.

@NaN I'm not sure if I'd say building one's stash to the desired threshold to FIRE is only 1% of the work. I just know that I am supremely confident with where my stash is at and what my risks are because I have spent significant time understanding sequence of returns risk, which is really what a portfolio failure boils do to. I will know years before my portfolio was ever in any serious trouble and would take what actions I needed to
 Some would call that a failure as well, but the labels don't matter, just what the impact on your life is. If it's a failure it's a failure but I still want to be out in front of it so my stress can be as low as possible. Plus by being ahead of it I may turn a major failure into something much softer. That's the real value to me.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
How do I know 2000 is already a failure? I stand corrected!

The total return after the first 20 years is less than 4%. That alone is not enough to make a determination because there are several years in the early 1960's where total return after 20 years is even less than the 2000 scenario and they still had funds left after 30 years. This is where the view of 10 year periods is helpful. The early 60s scenarios, and others, where total return is less than 4% after 20 years only succeed because they had significantly better returns during their first decade. Makes sense. Better returns early on build the stash up more and it's able to weather a bad second decade.

1912 is probably the closest example. -2.48% total return after one decade, 2.88% total return after two. 2000 was a -3.42% return after one, 3.81% total return after two. 1912 had an average return of 5.98% over the third decade. We're now 3 years into 2000's third decade and the average return over those 3 years is 2.64%.

1912 finished with almost half a million bucks. We would need some really good returns through 2029 to pull up the average and give 2020 a shot at making it. It's not impossible but I can't say that I'd bet it goes the distance.

There's a lot of really intriguing data one can glean from charts like these. Whether it's all that applicable to one's own situation is debatable. After all, these scenarios represent the person who blindly took their 4% for 30 years regardless of what happened and I think we've pretty well established that people aren't going to do that. When their stash balance gets low enough, they'll seek remedies like earning more income or reducing spending.

It looks like two double digit losing years in the first two years is a death sentence. The portfolio only recovered from that scenario one other time. So that makes me think that this year is very important. Another 10%+ loss and the odds are against you, at least historically.

Are the returns listed nominal or real?

Love the chart btw
« Last Edit: March 20, 2023, 06:11:49 PM by wageslave23 »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Death sentence?

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
Death sentence?

Sorry that was hyperbole. It failed 2 out of 3 times. So maybe death sentence in a right leaning state with a liberal governor?

Eta- I just now went back and saw that red does not mean fail.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2023, 06:24:40 PM by wageslave23 »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
@EscapeVelocity2020 The class of 2009 already won. They finished their first decade of FIRE averaging an annual return of 11.15% after adjusting for inflation. No prior starting year in history has come even close to failing after a first decade that good. The stash simply has too much of a head start. 2007 is not a clear case. 5.02% average return over the first decade. Very middling, as historical data points go. An exceptionally bad second decade could definitely cause a failure. Maybe even a somewhat poor second and third decade would cause a failure. The great thing about this data analysis is that it's impossible for portfolio failure to surprise you if you understand the historical data and how it compares to your own FIRE as the years and averages accumulate.

@Mr. Green I went back and looked at your chart and deleted my message.  I realize you are simplifying to just equities, but bonds typically play an important part of 30 year SORR protection.  The 2009 class benefitted from TINA, but this might've come back to bite us in 2022 and onward - if inflation remains high and the FFR has to stay higher for longer.  These are interesting times!

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
@wageslave23 the returns are real. It's just my visualization of the compound annual growth rate data at http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm.

I don't think two double digit down years are necessarily a killer. 1930 finished with over 660k. 1940 is two double digit years if you round (so damn close) and that was one of the runaway cases (4MM+). 2001 is also unclear. It finished the first 20 years with a 5.30% average annual return, which puts it on some fairly solid footing. 1973 was in roughly the same position but then saw virtually no gains in the third decade and that resulted in near-failure (34k left!).

I don't think one can look at these specific examples and hem the numbers in too tightly on what will win and lose but there is enough variation across individual years, 10- year return, and total return over 10-, 20- and 30-year periods that one can really get a good feel for the situations where things start getting dicey, or where they really get dicey. If one finds themselves in that cohort in the first 10 or 20 years it might allow for early evasive action. If one gets a tragic third decade though there might not be a whole lot one can do about it depending on how much breathing room someone has in the spending and whether they're still capable of working.

@EscapeVelocity2020 historically 90/10 or 80/20 portfolios fare slightly better than 100% equities so that would change the numbers a little bit. Someone could replicate this chart with any AA and see how the average returns play out for historical scenarios to better inform themselves of how their own returns compare. I use real numbers so I get the feedback of the inflationary events of the 70s and 80s on equities.


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
I'm finding it funny that folks keep saying 'it's too early to tell'.  Well duh, if you are looking at 30 years of FIRE and are only 1-2 years in, I would certainly hope you haven't definitively 'failed' already.  And of course, failure is likely a poor descriptor of what having to make adjustments actually is.  But it isn't too early to want to know a bit more about where you stand and if adjustments are necessary, maybe help inform just how important cutting back or making some money is.  This thread has been mostly useful in ways to go about thinking about it, it's just too bad we can't distill it down to the wisdom and gems... 

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Tennessee
Awesome chart, thanks for crunching the data.  Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears not only to be 100% equities but 100% domestic equities.  So the class of 99 or 2000 who stuck with a Bogleheads Three-Fund Portfolio at about 60/40 would have benefited from the relative outperformance of international equities in the first decade plus would have had some ballast in the bond portion of the portfolio.  That is, of course, the purpose of the "bond tent" to try and mitigate the SORR in the first decade of withdrawals.

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
@EscapeVelocity2020 unfortunately, one year of returns really is too early to tell. For me it is anyway. We can see that there are numerous historical examples of a first year being as bad as 2022 and the portfolio is quite alright through 30 years. We can use common sense to know that it's certainly not a good thing to start out that way and that the risk of failure is greater after a first year like 2022 than after one where someone saw a 20% gain but there simply isn't enough data yet to make decisions based on the math alone. Without a question, there is not enough data to say the Class of 2021 just retired at the worst time in history as the OP was asking. If someone is uncomfortable knowing they're at greater risk right out of the gate and that very poor returns the first year make them significantly less likely to be one of those runaway scenarios with too much money and they want to return to work or adjust spending as a result, that's a reasonable action. But I would not agree that the cold, hard math says to take evasive action after 2022 alone. I would not take evasive action after 2022 alone.

@OurTown you are correct my chart is 100% domestic equities.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2023, 09:30:53 AM by Mr. Green »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
So here is my thinking about predicting success rate again:

Something like Firecalc take all possible 30 yr sequences and gives you a rough estimate about success rate given portfolio value and expenses.  For 30 yr 4% withdrawal I think its about 96%. Of course this doesn't take into account anything to do with current valuations or recent stock markets returns, etc. But I believe it is a nice, easy ballpark starting point. So my belief is that taking your current portfolio value and current expenses and plugging them in with the remaining years of retirement would give you just as good of an estimate of your success rate as if you were just starting retirement and plugging in your current portfolio balance and current expenses and number of retirement years.

Of course controlling for current PE ratios, etc would give you more precise projections. But if we are ok with 96% being good enough at the start of retirement than what firecalc spits out for % after x number of years should also be good enough of a projection.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

Yes, the only bit I was trying to offset is that higher inflation is accompanied by higher bond yields (as the Fed tries to fight inflation by increasing borrowing costs) as well as company earnings getting a boost from inflation, so the real returns usually remain positive even if inflation is high.

If I could suggest an improvement @Mr. Green - maybe you could break out the CPI inflation and Annual Return numbers to highlight the correlation of failure to high inflation also.

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
@OurTown actually we do know 2000 is already a failure. 1999 too. I lied. See next post.

I'll have to attach my other SORR chart for that, which is total return by 10-year period over 30 years. Both of those years have performed so poorly that they fall within the cohort of historical examples that fail 100% of the time. And that includes the decade of 2010-2019 which averaged over 11% adjusted for inflation.

@wageslave23 my answer was somewhat tongue in cheek. Someone could point out that there are numerous starting years with better returns than 2022 that failed over a 30-year period but that requires data from following years to build an average. And we don't have that yet since it hasn't happened. Hence my "it's too soon to tell" answer originally, which is the only correct answer to the OP's question. Kicking it around for a minute can still be interesting though.

My estimates is showing that 2000 is already toast. While you have the annualized returns, you haven't projected portfolio value. Looks like you only tally that after 30 years is complete? I have them in the red as of mid 2022, hitting double digit WR in 2009 and then just a slow crash and burn until 2022 when they 0 out.

Much Fishing to Do

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
So when I used to give a lot of thought to whether I liked a SWR & portfolio mix or not, one of the things I would do is backtest (there are great tools out there) from Feb 2000 forward, which was a pretty historically horrible time to retire.  With a 70/30 portfolio (using vanguard total market and Vanguard total bond) and a 4% SWR, that person by my runs did run down to 40% (inflation adjusted) of their original portfolio and sits at about 60% now.  Though thats not exactly the place one may want to be, when I think of that as a person who retired at 45 and so is now 68, versus the person that decided to keep working till things looked better, which I dont really think happened till they turned like 57, its hard for me to think the choice to keep working an extra 12 years would have been the better one for me.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Being a person that took it on the chin in 2000 (holding individual dot com stocks), and also looking at Mr. Green's spreadsheet, I can confidently say that working 3-4 more years would've done the trick.  Of course, you don't know that 2008 is coming, but you get from 2003 until that point to build up some good returns before 2008 knocks you back to the 2003 level, then you get the 2009 bull market...  It would've been frustrating, but not a failure.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

I put together a couple comparisons to show why inflation, especially high inflation, will look a lot different from the 'reducing portfolio by inflation' approach.  The result is effectively the same, but looks a lot different...

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

I put together a couple comparisons to show why inflation, especially high inflation, will look a lot different from the 'reducing portfolio by inflation' approach.  The result is effectively the same, but looks a lot different...
You've just depicted reverse compounding. Only two ways to beat it. Earn more or spend less. Though I would say that if an equities index fund is returning 2% less than inflation for over two decades there are much larger problems.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2023, 08:04:44 PM by Mr. Green »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

I put together a couple comparisons to show why inflation, especially high inflation, will look a lot different from the 'reducing portfolio by inflation' approach.  The result is effectively the same, but looks a lot different...
You've just depicted reverse compounding. Only two ways to beat it. Earn more or spend less. Though I would say that if an equities index fund is returning 2% less than inflation for over two decades there are much larger problems.

Yeah, it's a simplified example for sure, but it's fascinating how $550k goes to zero in 4 years in the high inflation example.  Everything looks pretty good for the first 10 years or so, your portfolio can even be up despite the negative real return.

taco_sushi

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Been absent on MMM, chiming in - FI'd 3/2022 into the depths of SORR. I wish I read ERN deeply a year prior, but better late than never. ERN's "SORR content and glide-path suggestions" is super helpful. Anyone approaching FI in 3-5 years should read it. I experienced serious portfolio shock from having a tech heavy portfolio due to past stock awards. I've since rebalanced, but wish I had read/adopted ERNs glide path advice.

For several months, I've deployed ERN's Options Income strategy (1DTE) as an overlay on my portfolio (half index, half blue chips), and that's now supplementing income for my expenses (often covering more than my expenses), like ERN. He has all his backtesting and returns published -- better him to explain the details. My adjustments: I reduce my downside risk (and return) by using $5000 wide spreads, instead of naked puts. I may also close positions early for small amount to avoid extreme tail risks in this environment.

To be fair, I have a few years of options experience and am an active investor. But ERN's strategy is fairly consistent and conservative. It meets my needs for addressing SORR. ERN also has other suggestions to reducing SORR.

My situation is also different from most because I don't have a pure SP500 portfolio. I also have a small rental income, and recently bought 2 year CD ladders.

Like some have said, I think 4% Rule is great as a rule of thumb and for getting to the destination. But near/post FI, I found more helpful is ERN's thinking around SWR, SORR / creating a glide-path, and how he approaches spending as dynamic 40-60 (spending more) vs 70-90 (spending less).

I will also agree that MMM is living something quite different now. He's remodeling kitchens during a downturn. Same with 1500 Days, who's flipping houses. Plus their blog incomes. Great for both of them!  That's not helpful for the cohorts facing needing to reduce SORR, the failure part of 4% rule. 

Anyhow, ERN is a dense read, but well worth it!  And if you can withdraw only 3.3-3.5%, you should be 99% good.









« Last Edit: March 21, 2023, 09:57:48 PM by taco_sushi »

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
Being a person that took it on the chin in 2000 (holding individual dot com stocks), and also looking at Mr. Green's spreadsheet, I can confidently say that working 3-4 more years would've done the trick.  Of course, you don't know that 2008 is coming, but you get from 2003 until that point to build up some good returns before 2008 knocks you back to the 2003 level, then you get the 2009 bull market...  It would've been frustrating, but not a failure.

I'm not understanding your logic here. Unless you had a lot of very significant additional contributions - you haven't come close to the balance you had in 1999 after the loses 2000-2002. Similarly to my comment about 2007 vs 2009, even if you continued working and maxed 401k, etc. you still don't have the balance you had before the downturn. In 2007 it takes you until 2011 to recover (adding 40k/year to the pot) and in 1999 it takes until 2004.


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Being a person that took it on the chin in 2000 (holding individual dot com stocks), and also looking at Mr. Green's spreadsheet, I can confidently say that working 3-4 more years would've done the trick.  Of course, you don't know that 2008 is coming, but you get from 2003 until that point to build up some good returns before 2008 knocks you back to the 2003 level, then you get the 2009 bull market...  It would've been frustrating, but not a failure.

I'm not understanding your logic here. Unless you had a lot of very significant additional contributions - you haven't come close to the balance you had in 1999 after the loses 2000-2002. Similarly to my comment about 2007 vs 2009, even if you continued working and maxed 401k, etc. you still don't have the balance you had before the downturn. In 2007 it takes you until 2011 to recover (adding 40k/year to the pot) and in 1999 it takes until 2004.

We seem to be in agreement.

I'm not saying that I was made whole by 2003, I'm just saying that the income covered all my expenses during 1999-2002 so I didn't need to pull out any investments and, of course, I also added more during those years.  The rebound in 2003 was strong, then the rally until 2008 was enough to get hit all time highs, even if I hadn't contributed more.  Even though 2008 sets you back near 2003 levels, you then go on to experience an even bigger rally from 2009 onward which is more than enough to surpass all time highs again, and go on to have a successful 30 year FIRE even if you started in 2003 vs. 2015 as was indicated.

I was just pushing back against the idea it took 12 more years of work after 2003 to achieve FI, as was indicated by Much Fishing To Do.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5220
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Although 2021-22 may have been a terrible time to retire (as bad as 2000?), 2025 should be about as late as we need to go to, at least historically, get back to the really good FIRE SORR start year conditions...

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3056
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

I put together a couple comparisons to show why inflation, especially high inflation, will look a lot different from the 'reducing portfolio by inflation' approach.  The result is effectively the same, but looks a lot different...
You've just depicted reverse compounding. Only two ways to beat it. Earn more or spend less. Though I would say that if an equities index fund is returning 2% less than inflation for over two decades there are much larger problems.

I fired in 2019, since then my expenses excluding travel (have a separate bucket of funds for that) have gone up 25%  so ahead of inflation with about 10% due to lifestyle inflation (3% for new dog) and general increased costs of having 3 teens (food, Clothing, activities, etc) - our food bill has increased almost 50% since then.  Problem is my portfolio due to AA just kept pace with inflation so with withdrawals I have seen my WR go from around 3-3.25% to 3.75-4%, which i dont like.  Good thing I didn't rely on the 4% rule and had a buffer.  We will be fine probably bc at some point markets will go up again and at least now there are returns on fixed income, not to mention some of those increased kids costs will be reducing other than looming college costs which we have funds set aside (but maybe not enough).

But because of all these variables and some desire for engagement I went back to work late last year.   Is it worth it....for now it seems to be but probably not more than for a year or so.

Anyway, I had more runway of portfolio growth than a late 2021/early 2022 retiree and a low 3%ish WR and I don't know if 2021/2022 will be the worst time or even a failure time but I wouldn't be feeling good about it if I were in their shoes with basically a 25% real haircut if I started with a 4%WR.   Good luck to those that aren't reducing spending or increasing income.   

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
The trickier part of judging 2022 'success' comes with the resurgence of higher inflation.  Although you are using real returns in your chart, which simplifies the analysis, the nominal numbers are what us humans see every day.  It can be disorienting to think in terms of 8% of inflation on a 40k budget and a 18% decline in a million dollar portfolio and equate that to a 26% decline in purchasing power.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, but times of high inflation seem more prone to overestimating your chances of success.  You think that your expenses didn't go up SO much and that your portfolio didn't go down SO far, but by the tail end of a long period of high inflation, you are running out of money very quickly.  Seems manageable up front though...

FWIW this is what I was referring to earlier about 26% decline in portfolio value. I think we are in agreement about 26% real decline in purchasing power.

I put together a couple comparisons to show why inflation, especially high inflation, will look a lot different from the 'reducing portfolio by inflation' approach.  The result is effectively the same, but looks a lot different...
You've just depicted reverse compounding. Only two ways to beat it. Earn more or spend less. Though I would say that if an equities index fund is returning 2% less than inflation for over two decades there are much larger problems.

Yeah, it's a simplified example for sure, but it's fascinating how $550k goes to zero in 4 years in the high inflation example.  Everything looks pretty good for the first 10 years or so, your portfolio can even be up despite the negative real return.
By the time you get to 2017 in that example, the same spending costs 3x more in nominal dollars. Using today's costs as a baseline, that means cars cost 150-200k and the median home price in the US is $1.1 million. Everything is 3x more expensive than it is today. Is it really surprising that 550k would go to zero that fast given those prices?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2023, 08:58:16 AM by Mr. Green »

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
Being a person that took it on the chin in 2000 (holding individual dot com stocks), and also looking at Mr. Green's spreadsheet, I can confidently say that working 3-4 more years would've done the trick.  Of course, you don't know that 2008 is coming, but you get from 2003 until that point to build up some good returns before 2008 knocks you back to the 2003 level, then you get the 2009 bull market...  It would've been frustrating, but not a failure.

I'm not understanding your logic here. Unless you had a lot of very significant additional contributions - you haven't come close to the balance you had in 1999 after the loses 2000-2002. Similarly to my comment about 2007 vs 2009, even if you continued working and maxed 401k, etc. you still don't have the balance you had before the downturn. In 2007 it takes you until 2011 to recover (adding 40k/year to the pot) and in 1999 it takes until 2004.

We seem to be in agreement.

I'm not saying that I was made whole by 2003, I'm just saying that the income covered all my expenses during 1999-2002 so I didn't need to pull out any investments and, of course, I also added more during those years.  The rebound in 2003 was strong, then the rally until 2008 was enough to get hit all time highs, even if I hadn't contributed more.  Even though 2008 sets you back near 2003 levels, you then go on to experience an even bigger rally from 2009 onward which is more than enough to surpass all time highs again, and go on to have a successful 30 year FIRE even if you started in 2003 vs. 2015 as was indicated.

I was just pushing back against the idea it took 12 more years of work after 2003 to achieve FI, as was indicated by Much Fishing To Do.

Got it! thanks for clarifying.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Tennessee
Inflation is a bitch. 

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
Been absent on MMM, chiming in - FI'd 3/2022 into the depths of SORR. I wish I read ERN deeply a year prior, but better late than never. ERN's "SORR content and glide-path suggestions" is super helpful. Anyone approaching FI in 3-5 years should read it. I experienced serious portfolio shock from having a tech heavy portfolio due to past stock awards. I've since rebalanced, but wish I had read/adopted ERNs glide path advice.

For several months, I've deployed ERN's Options Income strategy (1DTE) as an overlay on my portfolio (half index, half blue chips), and that's now supplementing income for my expenses (often covering more than my expenses), like ERN. He has all his backtesting and returns published -- better him to explain the details. My adjustments: I reduce my downside risk (and return) by using $5000 wide spreads, instead of naked puts. I may also close positions early for small amount to avoid extreme tail risks in this environment.

To be fair, I have a few years of options experience and am an active investor. But ERN's strategy is fairly consistent and conservative. It meets my needs for addressing SORR. ERN also has other suggestions to reducing SORR.

My situation is also different from most because I don't have a pure SP500 portfolio. I also have a small rental income, and recently bought 2 year CD ladders.

Like some have said, I think 4% Rule is great as a rule of thumb and for getting to the destination. But near/post FI, I found more helpful is ERN's thinking around SWR, SORR / creating a glide-path, and how he approaches spending as dynamic 40-60 (spending more) vs 70-90 (spending less).

I will also agree that MMM is living something quite different now. He's remodeling kitchens during a downturn. Same with 1500 Days, who's flipping houses. Plus their blog incomes. Great for both of them!  That's not helpful for the cohorts facing needing to reduce SORR, the failure part of 4% rule. 

Anyhow, ERN is a dense read, but well worth it!  And if you can withdraw only 3.3-3.5%, you should be 99% good.

thanks - have looked at some ERN, but not too in-depth. I would not be a person who would do call/puts/spreads etc. and even if I tried to force myself to learn, 99% of my money is in 401k/roth, so I don't even think it is allowed?

Would you think a deep dive into the ERN SORR information still be useful to me?