this site's FIRE board on an almost daily basis in the days before the DCMs imported the tactics that had been used at an earlier time to burn the REHP board to the ground to burn the FIRE board to the ground as well.
Cheers!
this site's FIRE board on an almost daily basis in the days before the DCMs imported the tactics that had been used at an earlier time to burn the REHP board to the ground to burn the FIRE board to the ground as well.
What these studies report is the Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR) rather than the safe withdrawal rate (SWR).
1. Why does the HSWR not stand for " Historical Safe Withdrawal Rate"?
2. So you are saying that the SWR is NOT based on history and can predict the future!!???
We have cleaned up the method of presenting the concept of Safe Withdrawal Rates. To do so, we have had to draw some precise distinctions between what has happened (i.e., Historical Database Rates and other historical survival rates) and what is likely to happen (e.g., Safe Withdrawal Rates and Zero Balance Rates).
The intercst study a HISTORICAL no (HSWR being historical safe withdrawal rate in my book) and he has never claimed anything else.
I DO believe that it makes sense to look at valuations when investing - especially at current record valuations in almost all asset classes. BUT had I followed the PE10 at 10-12 rule(or whatever historical low/average), I would have missed the entire run-up in the mid 90ties-2000 as well as the 2003-04 rebound and been on the sideline for 10 years+ still waiting....
No thanks. Thats my take. Cheers!
The phrase "100 percent safe" has a defined meaning in SWR analysis. It means that there is no returns sequence that we have seen in the past that would cause the retirement to fail if it were to pop up in the future. The claim that a 4 percent take-out is "100 percent safe" at today's valuations is false. You need to go down to a take-out of 2.5 percent to have a take-out that is 100 percent safe at today's valuations, presuming that stocks perform in the future as they have in the past..
The claim that a 4 percent take-out is "100 percent safe" at today's valuations is false. You need to go down to a take-out of 2.5 percent to have a take-out that is 100 percent safe at today's valuations, presuming that stocks perform in the future as they have in the past
In fact, the claim that a 4 percent take-out number is safe at today's valuations is false. You need to go down to a take-out of 2.5 percent to have a take-out number that is safe at today's valuations, presuming that stocks perform in the future as they have in the past.
JWR/Hocus: Historical SWR survived all Historical sequences/returns so guess perfectly fine to call it the historical safe withdrawal rate? (Making no claims about current valuations and the future of course).
The essence of Safe Withdrawal Rates has to do with making predictions, estimating future risks and assuring portfolio survival. Historical survival information assists us, but it has never been an end in itself.
Historical survival does not assure safety looking forward
Historical SWR survived all Historical sequences/returns so guess perfectly fine to call it the historical safe withdrawal rate? (Making no claims about current valuations and the future of course).
But if you're using historical returns (in the past), and then what withdrawal rates showed success historically, the safe description refers to the past - history. x% withdrawn over y years permitted one a safe retirement. A portfolio over a past time period safely carried one through retirement withdrawing x% per year.