How are you gonna implement whatever safe withdrawal rate?

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

How are you gonna implement whatever safe withdrawal rate?

Post by ben »

Some of you are already retired, and some of us are on our way to FIRE.
No matter what it would be interesting to see have you are planning to implement your decided SWR/your best guess (no formulas needed!) on RANGE(no specifics! :lol:) of same.

Personally I believe I will use 3 budgets (basic 2-3% w/r, good 4%, very good 5%) being very flexible as to adjusting same for actual market results on my nest egg. Maybe in line with Gummy's Sensible w/r method, and for sure directly related to the market results/w. upper limits.

I am currently practicing LBYM (live below your means) fairly well, and at FIRE I believe I will be able to adjust up/down with in a resonable range without affecting my happiness too much. As I and Ken have mentioned before; I actually feel BETTER spending less when markets are down, than just blindly pulling a set % + inflation every year. :shock:

LBYM is easier than I first expected - the main thing for me is to stop thinking in "wants" and instead in "needs". Added benefit is less "stuff" cluttering my life/needing maintenance Etc. Big expenses are re-considered more than before (do I have something covering my need already? old 25 Inch TV OK rather than new flat screen?/will the new purchase make me happier?).

Naturally the above implies that one would need room to maneuvre spending down to 2% - and further I will have to re-calculate size of nest egg should family/children suddenly appear :idea: but that is a different story.

As to the inflation adjustment I also believe that on a personal basis it is easier to keep same low as long as willing to compromise a bit (E.g. to stay on the basic budget). Orange Juice to expensive; get Tang instead, new Pocket PC double price? buy last year model, beef price gone through the roof?, make chicken steaks instead. You get the picture... :wink:

As discussed before I could also move to another country to ensure lower cost of living - extreme me! 8)
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

Hi ben, I agree about flexibility. I know that under adverse circumstances I would not have the nerves of steel required to take an increasing dollar value withdrawal from a declining portfolio. Raddr had calculated the current % of portfolio withdrawal for a 2000 retiree using the rehp 4% rule. I think it was something like 6%. I will plan on being able to spend dividends only to maintain a basic lifestyle. Stock sales in good years foir extras (and aditional cash buffer) Gummy approach. OTOH my conservatism probably explains why I am still working and intercst (same age) has been retired for years.
Have fun.

Ataloss
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

To ben:

Thank you for your post. Discussions about retirement strategies such as yours are great! They help everybody.

Have fun.

John R.
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

Short answer: I plan on withdrawal rates below 2% for the next thirty odd years.

Long answer:

Year, Age, and Actual Withdrawal Rate
1994 54 4.57%
1995 55 3.36%
1996 56 3.36%
1997 57 3.10%
1998 58 3.07%
1999 59 3.08%
2000 60 3.56%
2001 61 3.68%
2002 62 2.45%
2003 63 1.93% (estimated)

This is the history of my withdrawals from the retirement stash since the first full year of my retirement at age 54. Except for the current year, listed last in the table, this covers actual experience and not predictions.

The withdrawal the first year was higher than later because my corporate pension did not start until age 55. I had vested rights in that pension when I quit working at age 53. I wasn't willing to squeeze myself when I was 54 as if there were no pension about to start.

This demonstrates my concern that realistic planning for safe withdrawal rates considers the integration of withdrawals with pensions, a factor routinely ignored in the SWR studies, past and proposed. We have heard a lot (and then some more) about SWR studies being invalid because of the omission of relevant data on valuations. Here are some more relevant data. My plan is to provide a more or less level real after-tax standard of living for myself in retirement. I don't mind the spending moving up or down some in response to market conditions, but I don't want to ignore pensions and taxes either. This requires that my withdrawal plans consider a pension (no COLA) that started at age 55, Social Security (with COLA) that will start at age 65 years and 4 months, and doubling or tripling of income taxes when I have to start IRA withdrawals at age 70.

There were relatively high withdrawal rates at ages 60 and 61. This represents the money raised to pay off the margin loan I used to buy the new house. The loan covered the difference between what I got for the old house and what I spent on the new one. Calling this an expense is not technically accurate, since I could get all or most of that money back by selling the house. Just to be cautious, I have pretended that buying the house was an expense in the same sense that taxes, insurance, food and gasoline are.

The decline in withdrawal rate at age 62 (year 2002) was a response to the declines in the market and having paid off the margin loan as well as a one-time "windfall" that increased the stash. The further decline in withdrawal rate at age 63 comes from reading all the gloomy stuff at nofeeboards and Four Pillars saying that future returns in the market must be low for the next decade or two or three exactly because returns in the previous decade or two were so high. Starting this year, I have reduced my planned real return in the market from 4% to 2% for the next thirty odd years. I don't actually believe in that grim scenario :roll:; I have adopted it as a plan just to be cautious. (Since Uncle Sam has appointed himself my business partner, and the income tax is graduated, IRS loses more proportionately than I do with this new lower estimate of returns.)

Varying my spending up and down with the market is easy and natural. Again, part of what is so implausible to me about the SWR studies is the idea that I would maintain my spending, year after year, without regard for what the market is doing. I'm glad that people work so hard on SWR analysis and prediction, but I will use their results only as a sanity check on my own, independent calculation. From that calculation, I get these planned average annual withdrawals at various ages:
63 to 69 1.46%
70 to 79 1.61%
80 to 89 1.79%
90 to 94 1.91%
The increased withdrawals cover only increased income taxes, not any change in real after-tax standard of living.

OK, I repeat myself. I have good company. :)
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

Post by ben »

Hi Ataloss: very interesting idea to make the BASIC budget same as the dividend payments :idea: Could you elaborate a bit on how you do that? While blue chip stock dividends will probably be fairly stable (in USD terms and maybe even inflation adjusted) I can imagine that REIT returns/other higher dividend payers (oil/gas Etc.) can have more swings in their payment schedules.

If we use the magic mill no. and then just total stock market dividend payments, we do not reach my 2% sniffle... :cry: My current total portfolio (US/foreign w. small/value twist/REITS/emerging bonds) dividend is about 3% overall but as mentioned; w. some of the dividend paying asset groups having bigger swings.

Therealchips: Wauw! As I said before; congrats on being able to have the good life budget on a 2% w/r! :D I agree that taxes/corp pension/health care plans/maybe even social security (if any for me when I get there in 30 odd years...if I get there...) are factors that need to be looked at in connection w. retirement.

My case is a bit special though as my corporate pension will still be fairly small if I "retire" really early (before 40) and can not be touched before hit 60. As to my home country social security, same is many law changes and years away too. As for taxes; right now all my investments are kept offshore taxfree (the pleasure of being an expat :P ), and even in FIRE do not see myself in my highly taxed Scandinavien home country - except for holidays. That could change of course!

You mention it is not hard to adjust your spendings according to returns - can you elaborate a bit more as to how you do that?
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

therealchips:
Short answer: I plan on withdrawal rates below 2% for the next thirty odd years.

Have you considered converting everything to cash? Actually, to things similar to cash such as ibonds that are guaranteed to match inflation.

Ignoring all of the details and (most significantly) ignoring taxes, cash at an inflation matched zero percent interest rate would last you 50 years (at a 2% withdrawal rate).

Of course, there are lots of reasons to have something besides cash. For example, it is nice to have that really big emergency fund. In addition, making investment decisions and playing around with spreadsheets everyday has a high entertainment value.

Have fun.

John R.
Cut-Throat
* Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Cut-Throat »

Chips,

Very nice record keeping and post! - I agree that flexible withdrawal rate is the way to go. More when the Market does well, less or none when it does poorly. That way you are forcing yourself to take some gains.

A couple questions.

1.) - How do keep records of withdrawal? - A tool on the computer or do you do this manually on paper?

2.) Why are you delaying Social Security ? - Everytime I run the numbers, with about 6% gain or so you have to live to 95 or so to make out delaying the SS. - everyone that I know of takes it at 62.

Thanks,

CT
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

Hi Ben, my portfolio give 3% dividends currently. I think (Asset Allocation, by Roger Gibson) the the standard deviation of dividends is much less than the standard deviation of capital gains. Gummy bought an annuity (9%!) and uses this for basic expenses taking trips to china etc when the market is good. I am (sort of) adapting his idea for my circumstances. I am also stealing from some of chips naval analogies (keeping powder dry and preserving manuvering room.) As swr diminishes it approaches yield. Spending income and preserving capital was an old fashioned approach (although probably not valid in the view of some)
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

oops
Last edited by ataloss on Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Have fun.

Ataloss
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

ben said:
Therealchips: Wauw! As I said before; congrats on being able to have the good life budget on a 2% w/r! I agree that taxes/corp pension/health care plans/maybe even social security (if any for me when I get there in 30 odd years...if I get there...) are factors that need to be looked at in connection w. retirement. . . . You mention it is not hard to adjust your spendings according to returns - can you elaborate a bit more as to how you do that?


Thanks, Ben. My accomplishment is less than it seems at first glance since I have never undertaken to support a family. I don't hold myself up as an example of how to achieve (somewhat) early retirement, at least, not for any of the majority who have children. Still, since I have no mortgage or rent, I could get by on just my pension and social security if I had to. There are people with government-guaranteed inflation-adjusted pensions adequate to support them. They can cut their withdrawal rates to zero as an old friend of mine does.

My spending habits are something like the people in Millionaire Next Door except that I do have a few luxuries. In general, I do not buy into consumerist and materialist culture. It is so easy for me to spend less when the market is down, I can't think of any particular "sacrifices" that have reduced my spending lately, except these two: In my first six or seven years of retirement, I did a lot of travelling -- cross country, ocean cruises, and by car here in the West. I have done very little travelling in the last three years. That was the easiest thing to give up. Secondly, I haven't bought, paid for, furnished and landscaped a new house since 2000 either. As I said, treating that as an expense rather than an investment is hyper-conservative.
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

JohnR said:
Ignoring all of the details and (most significantly) ignoring taxes, cash at an inflation matched zero percent interest rate would last you 50 years (at a 2% withdrawal rate).

Of course, there are lots of reasons to have something besides cash. For example, it is nice to have that really big emergency fund. In addition, making investment decisions and playing around with spreadsheets everyday has a high entertainment value.

My liquid reserves exceed five years withdrawals. In addition to that, I could easily raise money by taking a margin loan or a mortgage. So, I already have a really big emergency fund, and access to more cash beyond that without selling anything.

My plan is not just to avoid using up the stash, but to preserve its purchasing power intact for the next thirty years. I'm willing to bet that equities will beat TIPS for that purpose. If I'm wrong about that, I'll bear the bad news stoicly. I don't like the tax consequences of realizing my capital gains and the further consequences of then holding TIPS. TIPS don't actually make their owners whole against inflation because of the taxes they incur. I'm happier having my money invested in US corporations, supporting jobs to a great extent, rather than loaned to the US government, which is evidently a net destroyer of jobs.

I run my spreadsheet several times a week and, as you say, it entertains me. It also helps me avoid reacting to market volatility. The only investment decision I make on a daily basis is "Continue with the 'hold' part of 'buy and hold'". Once in a while I shift some assets in response to a special circumstance, such as reinvesting the cash I got when closed-end fund liquidated itself.
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

CT said:
Chips,

Very nice record keeping and post! - I agree that flexible withdrawal rate is the way to go. More when the Market does well, less or none when it does poorly. That way you are forcing yourself to take some gains.

A couple questions.

1.) - How do keep records of withdrawal? - A tool on the computer or do you do this manually on paper?

2.) Why are you delaying Social Security ? - Everytime I run the numbers, with about 6% gain or so you have to live to 95 or so to make out delaying the SS. - everyone that I know of takes it at 62.

Thanks, CT. I get lost in the number crunching drills on SWR posted here, and in the semantic confusion of some discussions, but I can contribute the point of view of someone ten years into retirement and better off financially than when he retired.

A loose end from the earlier post: If I had modified my withdrawals with only an inflation adjustment, ignoring market returns, then my average withdrawals as planned at various ages would be these:
63 to 69 1.23%
70 to 79 1.34%
80 to 89 1.49%
90 to 94 1.56%
instead of these:
63 to 69 1.46%
70 to 79 1.61%
80 to 89 1.79%
90 to 94 1.91%

As some of you have said for yourselves, refusing to adjust withdrawal rates based on actual performance of the retirement stash seems psychologically untenable to me.

1. I keep the records in Excel on a PC. Before 1993, I kept them with paper and pencil, but I moved them over to the computer in the year before I quit working. Excel helps me keep track of the data, run my optimization and sensitivity studies, and produce graphical summaries easily and frequently. The only hitch is computer crashes and the necessity of backing up the records in some other medium. I have used tape and floppies and backup computers, but I still managed to lose some data over the years. Nothing critical.

2. I'm delaying Social Security because that benefit is the only one I have that has a cost of living adjustment and a government guarantee. Taking it early is a bet against living into advanced old age. With life spans improving, that is a bet I don't want to make. I wouldn't want to bet on my early demise even if there were no medical advances in our future. There were many posts on when to start taking social security at the other place, with no agreement in sight. Certainly it appeals to my puritan stubbornness not to take the money early. The decision on a strictly financial basis must depend on life expectancy. If a sixty-year old has little chance of living five years more, delaying social security is an obvious loser. Running the numbers through my personal spread sheet for retirement planning, the result of taking the benefits early has always been a small reduction in the final value of the retirement stash, that is, on the day I turn 95 and the plan ends. That makes sense. If someone expects to live much longer than average, waiting until he can take full social security benefits is beneficial. Anyway, at age 63 years and 9 months, and eligible for full benefits at age 65 years and 4 months, I'm so close now that it could not much matter whether I continue to wait.

Here's an excerpt from a typical reference on the subject, with advice applicable to people much younger than I am: http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_29/b3690013.htm
Since the benefits are based on average life expectancy, arriving at an answer requires betting on your longevity. Those who die young are better off if they take their checks early. Centenarians, on the other hand, come out ahead if they wait for a larger benefit.

The consequences of miscalculating can be dire, as any 90-year-old trying to make ends meet on a permanently reduced monthly check can testify. ''If everyone started retiring at age 62, about 700,000 more seniors would be living in poverty sometime later in their lives--and the majority would be widows,'' Apfel says. Indeed, many of today's recipients will live long enough to regret their decision. That's because almost 70% of those receiving retirement benefits took them early---a move that will pay off if they die before reaching the average life expectancy. But by definition only half will die before reaching that age. So some 20% of the recipients will be drawing a permanently reduced benefit in their old age.

I suffer the reduced life expectancy that comes from having a Y chromosome, but I'm not willing to bet that I will be in the first half of my remaining cohort to die.
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Cut-Throat
* Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Cut-Throat »

Chips,

Then you agree with me that you basically have to live past 95 to come out ahead on the Social Security? -

I wonder what percent would make out better waiting?

Also, I plan on spending my portfolio as much as possible before I die. You seem to be leaving quite a pile when you die. Am I correct here?

Also, I have also seen many people in their 80's - That spending money is not too fun after that age. - Have you considered that?

You may have a bigger pile, but are you sure that is the way you want to go. - Just would like to hear your thoughts. Also, I don't think either of us will be starving, whatever way we choose.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

I like the idea of delaying ss to age 70 but I think these projections assume that you actually work during that time (to get the full increase in benefits)
Yes. The later you retire, the greater your monthly benefit. If you retired this year at age 62, your benefit would be 77.5% of what it would be at age 65 1/2. (That's the full retirement age for those born in 1940. The retirement age is increasing so that people born in 1960 or later don't get full benefits until age 67.) Delay retirement to 66, and the benefit would be 103.5% of the benefit at 65 1/2 and 133.5% of the benefit at 62.

Your benefit is 33.5% higher if you delay retirement by four years. Delay it by eight years, to age 70, and you get a retirement-income increase of about 70%.


http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/re ... p?Printer=
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

I think this is for delay from the "full" retirement age (which varies)

Benefit Increases for Delaying Retirement to Age 70
Year of Birth Yearly Rate of Increase
1917-1924 3.0%
1925-1926 3.5%
1927-1928 4.0%
1929-1930 4.5%
1931-1932 5.0%
1933-1934 5.5%
1935-1936 6.0%
1937-1938 6.5%
1939-1940 7.0%
1941-1942 7.5%
1943 or later 8.0%

http://www.finance.cch.com/text/c40s05d180.asp
Have fun.

Ataloss
PainInTheAS
* Rookie
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 3:16 am

Post by PainInTheAS »

Cut-Throat wrote: Also, I have also seen many people in their 80's - That spending money is not too fun after that age. - Have you considered that?


I don't intend to put words in therealchips' mouth, but depending on how dearly you wish to cling to life, and the state of your health at an advanced age, a big pile could be mighty attractive!

PITA
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

for CT who posted:
Then you agree with me that you basically have to live past 95 to come out ahead on the Social Security? -

I wonder what percent would make out better waiting?

Also, I plan on spending my portfolio as much as possible before I die. You seem to be leaving quite a pile when you die. Am I correct here?

Also, I have also seen many people in their 80's - That spending money is not too fun after that age. - Have you considered that?

You may have a bigger pile, but are you sure that is the way you want to go. - Just would like to hear your thoughts. Also, I don't think either of us will be starving, whatever way we choose.


I must learn to write more clearly! :D I don't agree that you have to live to age 95 to come out ahead on starting benefits at age 65. Further, I didn't say that. I spoke of looking at the results at age 95 just because that is where my present retirement plan ends.

Here is the simplified standard analysis of taking social security early: Suppose to start with that you can collect $10,000 a year if you start the benefits at age 65 but only $8,000 a year if you start at age 62. Consider a plan of starting the benefits at age 62, but spending your benefits as if they had started at age 65. That is, for three years, you just accumulate the benefits, spend none of them, building a stash of $24,000. Then, at age 65 you start taking $2,000 a year from that stash to supplement the $8,000 benefit you are drawing, to get you back to the $10,000 you could have had. You will use up the $24,000 stash in 12 years, drawing $2,000 a year. When that 12 years passes, you will be 77 years old. That, as I recall is the usual age given as "break-even". That is, if you think you will die before age 77, start social security early, otherwise wait until age 65 if financially feasible.

You can fuss over this analysis to add considerations of investing the stash, enjoying investment returns on it, paying income taxes on the social security before you get to invest it, making more precise the assumptions about when full benefits kick in and how much the reduction is for taking benefits early, and then gumming up the whole thing with inflation considerations. Maybe all that would push the break even point back a few years, but at the expense of the uncertainty about investment returns, inflation, and changes in tax law. My life expectancy is, I believe, considerably more than 77, and it would not pay me to start social security early. It would not have benefitted me to start social security a few years ago when I first became eligible.

If you plan on spending all or most of your assets before you die, you have to deal with not knowing when you will die, in addition to all the other major uncertainties: investment results, tax law changes, and inflation. Have you read Die Broke? You might enjoy it. One approach is to use up your assets while still fairly young and then live (or maybe only subsist) on your pensions thereafter. Another approach, too grim to contemplate, is to "arrange" to die on a date you pick years ahead of time. Another approach is to buy annuities that expire when you do. Such an annuity might or might not have an annual increase in benefit, but so far as I know, no private insurance company would guarantee to protect your annual payout against inflation. Only a government can afford that rash promise. If you buy an annuity, you are making the issuer the beneficiary of the residual value of that contract. The annuity issuers, even if they are charities, will protect themselves by paying you a low enough return to give themselves high probability that there will be a residual value when you die. None of those approaches have any interest for me; I only mention them for your consideration.

Yes, my plan is to preserve the purchasing power of the retirement stash more or less constant over the next three decades and to die with the stash intact. Anyone who designs a retirement using SWR ideas aims at minimizing the chances of going broke before dying; this inevititably produces a plan with a high probabilty of dying with a lot of assets still unspent unless the asset allocation is dominated by life-time annuities and pensions.

I have considered that living expenses might decline with age, but I also contemplate that they might rise. Expenses could drop, for example, in the areas of travel and recreation. They could rise, too. One day, I might have to pay people for services I now provide myself, such as driving, arranging meals, and taking care of the house. My medical expenses, after insurance, might be larger then than now, too.

A possible rationale for planning on a declining real after-tax standard of living is the inability to predict personal longevity. That is, I might plan to spend more while younger and less when later on the grounds that I'm much more likely to live through those earlier years. I might then tell myself, in advanced old age, that my currently reduced standard of living came from a calculated bet that I wouldn't live so long. I contemplate that rationale academically but it doesn't have any appeal to me. (Mathematical or gummy note: Such a plan can fall out of the mathematics automatically if the utility function for money is concave rather than linear and the analysis includes life expectancy statistics.)

Yeah, you are probably right. I think I could make it on just my pension and social security, so starvation does not appear to be a threat.
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

ben
I have tended to look at expenditure scenarios before looking at income strategies. Potentially the two major expenses in retirement are medical costs and taxes. As you and I are both non-US citizens we can escape taxes if we stay out of our home countries. If we stay in the Far East we can get good quality low-cost medical care. For my style of living I generally consider (very roughly) that other expenditure would be similar whether I lived in the Far East, Australasia, Europe or N. America.

If you remember from my previous posts, if I maximised income, I would get roughly 1/3 from pensions; 1/3 from real estate; 1/3 from withdrawals from financial assets (at 4% SWR). However at the moment I'm investigating in detail how much I'm likely to spend in retirement starting next year in Malaysia/Hong Kong/Thailand - preliminary indications are that, while maintaining my present standard of living, it is likely to be quite a bit less than my previous guestimate. I hadn't realised how much money I was spending just to go to work :D.
So it is quite probable that if, as is my intention for the next few years, I stay in no tax/low tax/low medical cost areas, then I can live happily within just my pension income with perhaps dipping into real estate income if the need arises i.e. zero SWR from financial assets.
For the scenario where I might eventually return to Europe or get a retirement visa in Australia with 30% tax rates etc etc, then I probably need to withdraw from financial assets at about a 2% SWR.

Although I might not put as much emphasis on it as Chips, my general philosophy would be to retain capital levels for the rest of my life. That seems the sensible thing to do from my own selfish point of view - maybe I need good quality care in my dotage. But I'm also happy to leave it to my kids - they're more financially responsible than I am :)

For absolute basic contingency planning (assuming a very major catastrophy in my personal finances - but as I'm so diversified that seems almost impossible) I will always retain a small house in the UK. With free medical care there I know that I can live on US$10,000 a year - basic but not starving.
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

Post by ben »

Hi Ken,
First of all I have reached same conclusions as you when it comes to my FIRE costs. No taxes and good, cheap healthcare surely helps in the equation! :D Also agree that other costs will be about the same nomatter where I am in the world.

I think you are very right about how our cost will drop when FIRE - imagine all the aspirins I will save! And starbucks on Monday mornings! :lol: and the suits Etc. - in true Your Money or your Life style.

My wish to retain the capital levels is a must - am simply to young at considered FIRE time to try to predict anything else - 60 year SWR rates are practically the same as eternal SWR in my book - and also when popped into various calculators. Further down the line if the nest egg is booming I can then decide adjusting the $ withdrawals. A luxury problem :D
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:46 am

Post by peteyperson »

The thing to remember here is that from 1990 to 1997, the S&P500 has averaged 16.6% return, pre-costs, pre-tax. Even though that took the PE10 from a fair valuation to very high, it still allowed enough buoyancy to comfortably cover a sub-4% w/d for the last few years.

Would that we all be so fortunate!

Petey


therealchips wrote: Thanks, CT. I get lost in the number crunching drills on SWR posted here, and in the semantic confusion of some discussions, but I can contribute the point of view of someone ten years into retirement and better off financially than when he retired.

A loose end from the earlier post: If I had modified my withdrawals with only an inflation adjustment, ignoring market returns, then my average withdrawals as planned at various ages would be these:
63 to 69 1.23%
70 to 79 1.34%
80 to 89 1.49%
90 to 94 1.56%
instead of these:
63 to 69 1.46%
70 to 79 1.61%
80 to 89 1.79%
90 to 94 1.91%
Post Reply