Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Challenging the 4% Rule

Including Financial Independence and Retiring Early (FIRE)
Mark66
Posts: 18
Joined: March 23rd, 2019, 8:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#462369

Postby Mark66 » December 1st, 2021, 4:29 pm

hiriskpaul wrote:Introducing some kind of dynamic spending, cutting back during periods of poor investment returns, spending more during the good times (as in Geoff100's Vanguard link) can take a surprising amount of risk off the table.


I totally agree about dynamic spending.

I retired 2 years ago (at age of 53). In the years leading up to retirement I was investigating various withdrawal strategies. I read Mclungs 'Living Off Your Money' (from a recommendation here :) ), then (being an engineer) back tested various algorithms for my self and not being satisfied started trying to develop my own 'improved' withdrawal strategy (originally using 'Simba's back testing data set', then investigating more random returns with long and shorter term trends superimposed - my version of a 'Monte Carlo' style approach).

To my eyes, I concluded the possible sequence of returns are too variable for a fixed algorithm, they all had flaws in some scenarios. Also how strong is your resolve? I was convinced whatever magical strategy I embarked on now, in the light of a prolonged downturn, I would manually intervene to some degree.

The solution I saw is a 'keep it simple' dynamic approach to withdrawal where my instinct to the current economic climate modulates my withdrawal rate.

Some other important components of my approach are well established and used by many:
- cash holding of two years general spending
- move into cash big discretional spending before committing to them (e.g. extension to house, any lavish holidays, new car etc)

Longer term I hold some 'defensive' holdings other than my essentially world passive index approach. Importantly in my view it is not to smooth out volatility of my overall portfolio but to draw upon should a market downturn go on for more than my 2 years cash. I see my portfolio more like a mix of 20% Golden butterfly/permanent portfolio style for security (to nominally cover another 8 years at 2.5%), and 80% pure equities for growth. (I settled on 10% Gilts (VGOV) and 5% gold).

I still see 4% as I always have done just a good rule of thumb, a ballpark of what is enough for your retirement, and an amount to initially withdraw. I know statistically my returns will most likely exceed this, but I am also prepared to live off less than this for a few years if necessary to minimise any long term damage to my portfolio.

As has been stated there is no one solution that suits all. Just thought it worth adding my perspective into the mix as food for thought.

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#462577

Postby 1nvest » December 2nd, 2021, 11:11 am

Correcting the misattributed quoting :)
hiriskpaul wrote:
DrFfybes wrote:I selected a drawdown of $100 each quarter (4%) and inflation linked it, leave rebalancing on, and in pretty much every scenario I could find the higher equites portfolios won out, often quite considerably.

I would agree with that assessment. In over 90% of cases you are better off 100% in equities adding bonds results in worse outcomes. But having bonds/cash, probably gold as well gets you a higher SWR in those 10% of cases where market and/or sequence of returns are really bad.

Is it more important to avoid really bad outcomes, or to maximise income/legacy?

There's potential to modestly lower legacy/rewards compared to 100% stock whilst significantly reducing the risk of a bad stock sequence of returns. The considerable risk factor is the first decade or so following transition from accumulation into retirement/drawdown. A bad sequence of returns could see a initial 4% SWR in effect rapidly rising to being 8% i.e. the real portfolio value halved. To reduce that risk accepting a lower SWR along with some 'insurance' (hedging) might help. 80/20 initial stock/gold, non rebalanced other than from gold to stocks if stocks do poorly/gold does well, and if stocks halve, gold doubles and you transition to all-stock, you've doubled up your # shares and would be sitting relatively well placed. That insurance cost is perhaps 0.8 x 4% = 3.2% SWR, but even if stock raced upward the gold value would still be available to move across to stocks at some point perhaps after a decade, so perhaps 3.5% SWR. Transitioning from 80/20 to 100/0 final averages 90/10 over that transition period (after a decade), which wont be too much of a drag factor. Even less so longer term as ongoing 100/0 relatively depletes the average % gold held over the total period. Historically there has been a element of inverse multi-year correlation between stocks and gold such that such insurance has tended to serve OK if/when needed.

Buy and hold is the same as cost-less lumping in every day, doing that during accumulation years generally maximises the size of retirement pot. At transition to drawdown sell 20% to buy gold and migrate that gold back again into stocks during/after those 10 years, perhaps relatively quickly so if stocks presented a bad SOR situation during those ten-years, or as/when stocks had risen sufficiently enough such that the hedging was no longer required (stocks doubled, you can afford for them to half back down again without really having affected the original withdrawal rate intent such that the gold 'insurance' is no longer required).

A factor there however is that the down/negative side volatility can still be considerable, you may at times be sitting on a portfolio value of just 25% of its inflation adjusted start date level, pretty uncomfortable and more inclined to lead to capitulation at the worst possible time due to fear (save what little capital remained). Even the most hardened 'stay the course' investors can fall foul of such behavioural risks. Yet another factor is that what works mathematically doesn't always work in practice. At times when your portfolio is stressed so also likely is the governments 'portfolio' such that taxes are revised heavily to the upside. Back in the 90% higher tax rate days even basic/most-common rate taxpayers were paying near 40% rates. Gold in that sense can be more protective than bonds due to not paying any regular income stream. Bonds paying 12% in a 12% inflation rate era, taxed at 40% = -4.8%/year real loss. Yet other choices of inflation hedge can equally fail, such as index linked savings certificates being withdrawn from new purchases at times when they are more likely to be required.

The likes of HYP/all-stock concept works more often, but has endured times when both capital and income levels were down at 25% inflation adjusted levels. You have to consider how you might deal/react to such a situation if that were repeated. With a large cash (bond) reserve you are perhaps less inclined to change things, even though bonds may also be down, but not as deeply as stocks. Do nothing in absence of anything better to move into. Contrasted with all-stock opting to do something and move a chunk/all of deeply down stocks into something else that hadn't lost as much. Middle road choices include thirds each in US$ invested in US stocks, UK£ in Gilts, gold ... three currencies/three assets; Or the likes of UK home, US stock, gold, again three currencies/three assets. For the former perhaps 3% SWR, for the latter 2% SWR excluding imputed rent benefit (so still 3% if you factor in the imputed rent benefit). Less inclined to leave as much for heirs, less inclined to do a Groucho Marx (who in present day terms lost $12M in stocks and transitioned what remained over to all-bonds back in the 1920's). However subjectively so. If the Dow/Gold is down at 1.0 type levels as per 1980 that is suggestive that gold is massively expensive or stocks are massively cheap. Or 1999 when Dow/Gold was up at 40 levels - suggestive of expensive stocks/gold cheap. At such extremes you'd want to reconsider the weightings to each of stock and gold.

Once out of the 'danger zone', the first ten-years or so, and you might revise your asset allocation perhaps to be more focused on maximising a legacy. Getting into your 80's, spending less, more than enough from pensions and investment income, might as well increase stock exposure to leave a more stock-heavy portfolio for younger heirs to inherit. Where even if stocks halved you'd still be OK.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3131
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 3060 times
Been thanked: 554 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#468300

Postby DiamondEcho » December 23rd, 2021, 10:36 pm

Steveam wrote:At age 90 I intend to start spending on wine, women and song … I might even throw in the odd Christmas cigar and switch on the central heating more than once a day. Best wishes, Steve


Ah you see I see things panning out differently, this is based on how my tastes and needs have changed through recent decades. Right now my HYP income is still quite a bit more than my expenditure; the unspent div income gets reinvested, the capital is untouched. At some point (TBD) I might accept I'm retiring from HYPing, a notional point when my income/budget/spend does a one-off structural pivot.

Real life suggests the 'run off' of spending won't be a straight line. We do and will enjoy travel now (done in some added comfort/better seats+airlines) that costs more than it used to. But observing relatives/parents etc I see how an appetite for say long-haul travel understandbly ebbs away over time.

I've always been a saver, have never had a new car. Something to enjoy at '65' or '85'?, same logic as above it's obvious to me.

And so on. In the UK we have some comfort from a baseline NHS for health provision. I don't believe most in the US have such security so whereas they might have to budget for increasing med-bill co-payments etc. I'm still unsure to what extent this might be mirrored in the UK.

I have never been left a penny by anyone and I don't intend to fore-go my life's work to hand it to others (relatives) all of whom seem far smarter and in better career paths than I ever was. So apart from some relatively generous bits here and there to causes that previously helped me, the ideal plan is to exit with nothing other than will leave my hopefully surviving spouse as comfortable as we previously were.

Here's the thing the above does not describe an X% rule, instead it recognises a need to front-load outgoings, then the uncomfortable bit (entirely contrary to the HYPers mind-set) plan to draw-down the capital and spend it. It's either I enjoy it, finally let go and learn how to enjoy it, or it'll be left to others who either don't need it or who knows, might squander it.

Suddenly the 'X% rule' sounds like something as rudimentary as from the 1960s, or indeed very early Motley Fool. It might make life much simpler/low stress planning it but it does not sound at all efficient vs the work that went into building the HYP over decades, esp. as 'the rule' hasn't changed since - what 50-60 years ago!

Steveam
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: March 18th, 2017, 10:22 pm
Has thanked: 1745 times
Been thanked: 534 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#468320

Postby Steveam » December 24th, 2021, 7:58 am

Interesting to see this thread revived and my quoted comment. I’ve recently had a bit of a health scare (hopefully going in the right direction) and given the choice of NHS and private I’ve spent, so far, over £20k going privately. Worth every penny for quick investigations, peace of mind and identifying the way forward. I may at some point switch back towards the NHS but I’m pleased to have had this option.

Best wishes,

Steve

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#468321

Postby Dod101 » December 24th, 2021, 8:05 am

Steveam wrote:Interesting to see this thread revived and my quoted comment. I’ve recently had a bit of a health scare (hopefully going in the right direction) and given the choice of NHS and private I’ve spent, so far, over £20k going privately. Worth every penny for quick investigations, peace of mind and identifying the way forward. I may at some point switch back towards the NHS but I’m pleased to have had this option.

Best wishes,

Steve


Your experience illustrates as always that, as Burns said 'The best laid plans of mice and men.....' However it is surely better to have a plan than not.

Dod

vand
Lemon Slice
Posts: 758
Joined: January 5th, 2022, 9:00 am
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471142

Postby vand » January 7th, 2022, 2:31 pm

Ah, the infamous 4% rule, SORR & SWRs.. I just love unpacking this stuff.

The rule really derives from the worst case scenario of retiring with a balanced portfolio at the worst possible date (ie 1968) and still not running out of money on an inflation adjusted basis over 30 years. I love Kitces' work on this stuff.

Overall I still think that it's a good number to shoot for. Noted objections mainly arguing for a lower number today due to various factors:

- bond & equity valuations are sky high, and there is no way that portfolio growth will not be lower over the next decade and possibly over the next 3 or 4 decades
- lower (possibly negative) growth due to high valuations suggested by eg CAPE ratio puts you at higher risk of hitting an unfavourable sequence of returns as you are pulling money out (SORR)
- 4% SWR has been derived from the best performing dataset (US markets). The rule is not as infallable for other countries.
- There was no such thing as index funds for some of the time that the data supposedly covers. Had they existed back when all these simulations were run they in themselves would have changed the nature of the market and therefore changed market history

On the flipside
- The range of outcomes is huge. If you blindly followed the 4% rule then there is a better chance that you tripled your wealth in retirement as there was of running out of money, and most people would still have died with more money than they retired.

Personally I think that the most straightforward modification you can make is to adjust your asset allocation and just add a 10% weighting to gold. In the two major periods where paper assets have struggled (1970s & 2000s) I like to say that gold was the lifeboat that would have kept your portfolio afloat. That's a pretty good batting average. Even if you use the simulation tools on sites like PortfolioVisualiser or cfiresim a 10% gold allocation improves the survivability and raises the SWR of near all stock/bond mixes. Asset allocation is so important to understand - PortfolioCharts recently wrote an exceptional piece on the 3 components of the most efficient portfolios.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471156

Postby Lootman » January 7th, 2022, 3:01 pm

vand wrote:4% SWR has been derived from the best performing dataset (US markets). The rule is not as infallible for other countries.

True, but just because you live in another country doesn't mean you have to invest in it.

So whilst the UK market has significantly under-performed the US market for the last 30 years, that is of little importance if like me you have allocated less than 10% of your portfolio to UK equities.

vand wrote:There was no such thing as index funds for some of the time that the data supposedly covers. Had they existed back when all these simulations were run they in themselves would have changed the nature of the market and therefore changed market history.

They've been around longer than you think. Vanguard's Bogle started the first retail index fund in 1975 and Wells Fargo had an institutional index fund in 1973. The first index ETF is nearly 30 years old.

vand wrote:The range of outcomes is huge. If you blindly followed the 4% rule then there is a better chance that you tripled your wealth in retirement as there was of running out of money, and most people would still have died with more money than they retired.

That has been my experience. I haven't worked for nearly two decades and yet my net worth now is probably three times what it was when I retired.

Evidently my SWR is a lot higher than I thought at the turn of the century, despite two dramatic market crashes since then (three if you count Covid 2020)

vand
Lemon Slice
Posts: 758
Joined: January 5th, 2022, 9:00 am
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471181

Postby vand » January 7th, 2022, 3:56 pm

Lootman wrote:
vand wrote:4% SWR has been derived from the best performing dataset (US markets). The rule is not as infallible for other countries.

True, but just because you live in another country doesn't mean you have to invest in it.

So whilst the UK market has significantly under-performed the US market for the last 30 years, that is of little importance if like me you have allocated less than 10% of your portfolio to UK equities.

vand wrote:There was no such thing as index funds for some of the time that the data supposedly covers. Had they existed back when all these simulations were run they in themselves would have changed the nature of the market and therefore changed market history.

They've been around longer than you think. Vanguard's Bogle started the first retail index fund in 1975 and Wells Fargo had an institutional index fund in 1973. The first index ETF is nearly 30 years old.


I know when index funds were introduced and yes they have been around since the 1970s. However they have certainly weren't around since the 1920s which sites like cfiresim use for their historical simulations. Using data just from 1970 represents a real problem because we don't even have 3 fully independent data series, so instead we use random walk monte carlo sims to give us a supposedly independent dataset starting each year. This is problematic because the underlying assumption of independence of datasets may not hold true.

Also, even if index funds have been around for a long time, I would argue that it certainly wasn't standard orthodoxy to invest a "global cap weighted index fund" until much longer. Opening a PEP and buying index funds just wasn't what you did back in the 1980s and 90s.

A part of the reason why the US data holds up so well is not just its equity performance, but that its fixed income has performed slightly better. We only know this with today with the additional data available to us. Had we been having the conversation at various other points in history then it might not have been clear at all that it was a superior strategy.

You have to wonder how much of what we accept today as best practice is for a good fundamental reason, and how much of it is just fitting our models to the events that happened in the past without accepting that other events and as such strategies could have been equally viable, and we are living the survivorship bias.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471183

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 7th, 2022, 4:06 pm

I was reading a "financial" website yesterday. The site is called Money to the Masses. One Author [The Site's Owner] claimed that you needed £1m in a pension and to ensure you don't run out of money draw down £20K per year or just under 2%.

Absolute bunkum

AiY

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471186

Postby NotSure » January 7th, 2022, 4:17 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I was reading a "financial" website yesterday. The site is called Money to the Masses. One Author [The Site's Owner] claimed that you needed £1m in a pension and to ensure you don't run out of money draw down £20K per year or just under 2%.

Absolute bunkum

AiY


Presumably assuming inflation at 5 or 6% combined with no/low growth in asset values? Or a very long retirement? Seems unlikely that 2% is a reasonable SWR, but not totally implausible after 14 years of QE - i.e. near deflation in CPI/RPI combined with huge inflation in assets. A 3% escalation annuity at 65 is about 3.5%, but would obviously not keep up if inflation was 5 or 6%.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471190

Postby scrumpyjack » January 7th, 2022, 4:29 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I was reading a "financial" website yesterday. The site is called Money to the Masses. One Author [The Site's Owner] claimed that you needed £1m in a pension and to ensure you don't run out of money draw down £20K per year or just under 2%.

Absolute bunkum

AiY


All depends on your assumptions. If we assume that inflation each year is 5% and you get a return of 2% on your £1m each year and that your drawings go up with inflation each year, that pot would run out in the 18th year and you have nothing left!

Newroad
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1090
Joined: November 23rd, 2019, 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471201

Postby Newroad » January 7th, 2022, 5:07 pm

Hi All.

Here are some earlier thoughts I had on this (though it's not yet retirement time for me)

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28781

In short, I think a fixed component to retirement income (whether that be a percentage drawdown, or a defined benefit pension, or whatever) combined with a variable approach calibrated by years to a notional death date, is likely to suit me (and perhaps others) best.

Regards, Newroad

Gilgongo
Lemon Slice
Posts: 415
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471275

Postby Gilgongo » January 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:If we assume that inflation each year is 5% and you get a return of 2% on your £1m each year and that your drawings go up with inflation each year, that pot would run out in the 18th year and you have nothing left!


Really? On a £20K/year drawdown?

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471286

Postby NotSure » January 7th, 2022, 9:26 pm

Gilgongo wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:If we assume that inflation each year is 5% and you get a return of 2% on your £1m each year and that your drawings go up with inflation each year, that pot would run out in the 18th year and you have nothing left!


Really? On a £20K/year drawdown?


I estimate 30 years to use it up under those circumstances? i.e 20K/year index linked at 5% inflation, 2% return

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471289

Postby scrumpyjack » January 7th, 2022, 9:30 pm

Gilgongo wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:If we assume that inflation each year is 5% and you get a return of 2% on your £1m each year and that your drawings go up with inflation each year, that pot would run out in the 18th year and you have nothing left!


Really? On a £20K/year drawdown?


Sorry 20 years!

After Inflation
Capital Int. Drawn 5% Infl. Balance
1 1,000,000 20,000 -20,000 -50,000 950,000
2 950,000 19,000 -21,000 -47,500 900,500
3 900,500 18,010 -22,050 -45,025 851,435
4 851,435 17,029 -23,153 -42,572 802,739
5 802,739 16,055 -24,310 -40,137 754,347
6 754,347 15,087 -25,526 -37,717 706,191
7 706,191 14,124 -26,802 -35,310 658,203
8 658,203 13,164 -28,142 -32,910 610,315
9 610,315 12,206 -29,549 -30,516 562,457
10 562,457 11,249 -31,027 -28,123 514,557
11 514,557 10,291 -32,578 -25,728 466,542
12 466,542 9,331 -34,207 -23,327 418,339
13 418,339 8,367 -35,917 -20,917 369,872
14 369,872 7,397 -37,713 -18,494 321,062
15 321,062 6,421 -39,599 -16,053 271,832
16 271,832 5,437 -41,579 -13,592 222,098
17 222,098 4,442 -43,657 -11,105 171,778
18 171,778 3,436 -45,840 -8,589 120,784
19 120,784 2,416 -48,132 -6,039 69,028
20 69,028 1,381 -50,539 -3,451 16,419

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471293

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 7th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Gilgongo wrote:Really? On a £20K/year drawdown?

The figures quoted were assumptive.

I could offer alternative assumptions which would allow a larger drawdown and continued growth of the fund. I'm not entirely sure that would be constructive though. I've developed, what I believe, to be some simple but extremely effective methods which apply to my individual circumstances.

  1. A fund size double that which is needed - protection from market downside by up to 50%
  2. Upon crystallisation of the fund take 25% tax free - provides over 4 years income without removing further from the fund
  3. Take a maximum of 4% (flexible) from the pension annually. Provides a rolling four year horizon of cash
  4. Ensure the pension is in satisfactory funds making a healthy return
  5. If market falls dramatically (for example covid) use cash to buy more of the funds in the pension - maximising ISA allowances first
  6. Fund size based on monthly income costs of £3K per month.
  7. Know that the base monthly costs to pay all outgoings are less than £2K per month
AiY
Noting that when interest rates rise the return on cash will rise to.

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471302

Postby CliffEdge » January 7th, 2022, 10:36 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
Gilgongo wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:If we assume that inflation each year is 5% and you get a return of 2% on your £1m each year and that your drawings go up with inflation each year, that pot would run out in the 18th year and you have nothing left!


Really? On a £20K/year drawdown?


Sorry 20 years!

After Inflation
Capital Int. Drawn 5% Infl. Balance
1 1,000,000 20,000 -20,000 -50,000 950,000
2 950,000 19,000 -21,000 -47,500 900,500
3 900,500 18,010 -22,050 -45,025 851,435
4 851,435 17,029 -23,153 -42,572 802,739
5 802,739 16,055 -24,310 -40,137 754,347
6 754,347 15,087 -25,526 -37,717 706,191
7 706,191 14,124 -26,802 -35,310 658,203
8 658,203 13,164 -28,142 -32,910 610,315
9 610,315 12,206 -29,549 -30,516 562,457
10 562,457 11,249 -31,027 -28,123 514,557
11 514,557 10,291 -32,578 -25,728 466,542
12 466,542 9,331 -34,207 -23,327 418,339
13 418,339 8,367 -35,917 -20,917 369,872
14 369,872 7,397 -37,713 -18,494 321,062
15 321,062 6,421 -39,599 -16,053 271,832
16 271,832 5,437 -41,579 -13,592 222,098
17 222,098 4,442 -43,657 -11,105 171,778
18 171,778 3,436 -45,840 -8,589 120,784
19 120,784 2,416 -48,132 -6,039 69,028
20 69,028 1,381 -50,539 -3,451 16,419

Nonsense

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471322

Postby scrumpyjack » January 8th, 2022, 6:53 am

Too much wine last night, I'm double counting inflation

Wuffle
Lemon Slice
Posts: 496
Joined: November 20th, 2016, 8:14 am
Been thanked: 213 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471323

Postby Wuffle » January 8th, 2022, 7:16 am

Could I just say that as someone a little younger, that I would have started to take a punt on this market a while before line 20.

W.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Challenging the 4% Rule

#471328

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 8th, 2022, 8:07 am

scrumpyjack wrote:Too much wine last night, I'm double counting inflation

Scrumpy - keep drinking - we we're too drunk to notice ;) My bad :oops:

Take care

AiY


Return to “Retirement Investing (inc FIRE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests