The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
I received a query from a client who wanted to see how a well diversified portfolio would have done under withdrawal starting at the top in 2000. (Common question these days. ) To answer the question, I updated some work I did about two years ago (see e.g. this post). I added a line for the simplest possible inflation adjusted portfolio, namely one invested entirely in RRBs. The result looks like this ...
The results are brutal for all the diversified portfolios, particularly the growth portfolio, but it's still not clear if we're destined for disaster per the parameters of the usual SWR studies. (The studies all demand 30 year portfolio survival, we're 8+ years in, and the worst case is the FPX growth portfolio which is right around 55% of initial real value.) Any such investor is arguably in similar circumstances to that which prevailed in the worst part of 2003 and not remarkably worse.
You might imagine that adding the RRB line promised an interesting discussion with my client, so I thought I'd better be prepared. So I ran the simulation again from the bubble top in RRBs - December 2005 - and came up with ...
The above is three years in, i.e. about the same length of time as it took from the top in 2000 to the bottom in 2003. 100% RRBs are the worst portfolio, and worse than FPX Income looked in 2003.
Just thought I'd share...
Edited (2020-04-06) to replace expired tinypic images with attachments.
The results are brutal for all the diversified portfolios, particularly the growth portfolio, but it's still not clear if we're destined for disaster per the parameters of the usual SWR studies. (The studies all demand 30 year portfolio survival, we're 8+ years in, and the worst case is the FPX growth portfolio which is right around 55% of initial real value.) Any such investor is arguably in similar circumstances to that which prevailed in the worst part of 2003 and not remarkably worse.
You might imagine that adding the RRB line promised an interesting discussion with my client, so I thought I'd better be prepared. So I ran the simulation again from the bubble top in RRBs - December 2005 - and came up with ...
The above is three years in, i.e. about the same length of time as it took from the top in 2000 to the bottom in 2003. 100% RRBs are the worst portfolio, and worse than FPX Income looked in 2003.
Just thought I'd share...
Edited (2020-04-06) to replace expired tinypic images with attachments.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
... which proves that if you pick your end points carefully, you can prove almost anything
I went to a 50% RRB portfolio around 2001, using the jetsam and flotsam left over from my tech stocks. Now I'm about two thirds RRBs, having done no rebalancing whatsoever.
Having two-thirds of my savings wiped out once was enough. This way I know I'll never have to eat dog food.
RRBs turned out to be a lot more volatile than I had expected. I had not taken liquidity risk seriously enough, I guess.
George
I went to a 50% RRB portfolio around 2001, using the jetsam and flotsam left over from my tech stocks. Now I'm about two thirds RRBs, having done no rebalancing whatsoever.
Having two-thirds of my savings wiped out once was enough. This way I know I'll never have to eat dog food.
RRBs turned out to be a lot more volatile than I had expected. I had not taken liquidity risk seriously enough, I guess.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
Is there a good link to the composition of the Income FPX?
There is a calculator here http://www.croftgroup.com/indexes/calculator.asp
There is a calculator here http://www.croftgroup.com/indexes/calculator.asp
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 16 Aug 2008 17:23
- Contact:
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
Norbert; without getting back into the market timing argument.
It seems that someone who has planned to withdraw a certain % of their investments in retirement might be in the situation where they will have to adjust their lifestyle.
Once a person has reached the distribution stage of their financial plan doesn’t it make sense to have a tighter rein on risk?
Rather than adjust your lifestyle to fit your income if your investments have a downturn wouldn’t it be reasonable to adjust your plan so that you are protected from the downturn.
Define you risk. Know how much you are prepared to lose on any investment. Take gains when they exceed targets, set limits on losses and preserve your capital.
Change your plan for rebalancing. Add to your winners and boot out the losers rather than selling an investment when it exceeds a certain percentage of your portfolio and buying what isn’t performing at this time.
Buy some insurance: Out of the money puts. In a bull market they are usually fairly cheap.
It seems that someone who has planned to withdraw a certain % of their investments in retirement might be in the situation where they will have to adjust their lifestyle.
Once a person has reached the distribution stage of their financial plan doesn’t it make sense to have a tighter rein on risk?
Rather than adjust your lifestyle to fit your income if your investments have a downturn wouldn’t it be reasonable to adjust your plan so that you are protected from the downturn.
Define you risk. Know how much you are prepared to lose on any investment. Take gains when they exceed targets, set limits on losses and preserve your capital.
Change your plan for rebalancing. Add to your winners and boot out the losers rather than selling an investment when it exceeds a certain percentage of your portfolio and buying what isn’t performing at this time.
Buy some insurance: Out of the money puts. In a bull market they are usually fairly cheap.
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
Would you two hurry up and agree on something. I wish I would have had something in place before this dam storm hit. So far the only idea I have is lower the equity position from 50% to 30%.deaddog wrote:It doesn't have to be my approach.Norbert Schlenker wrote: Is there evidence that your approach puts a tighter rein on risk?
Is it necessary to ride out wild swings to achieve the results you want?
Yes.deaddog wrote:It doesn't have to be my approach.
Is it necessary to ride out wild swings to achieve the results you want?
For most people, relying on ultra-safe, guaranteed investments, is not going to cut it. Using deaddog's approach is not necessarily better -- it's quite easy to lose a lot of capital from being whipsawed.
As I've written before, it's a matter of probabilities and using them to your advantage - for example, I don't invest to be protected from TEOTWAWKI - if it happens, I won't enjoy it anyways.
As it's been said by some wise men (Warren Buffett?): be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful. I think today's the time for the latter proposition.
Hi Adrian;adrian2 wrote: As it's been said by some wise men (Warren Buffett?): be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful. I think today's the time for the latter proposition.
So how do you be fearful if not by unloading some of your profits? Then you can take advantage of fearful times.
BTW If I mentioned Bernie Madoff as a successful market timer would you take him off the list please.
Sure, but my point was that nowadays it's time to be greedy.deaddog wrote:So how do you be fearful if not by unloading some of your profits? Then you can take advantage of fearful times.
Once again, my main objection to your strategy is being whipsawed, time and time again. The gains you may make minus the whipsaws, in the long run, will likely underperform buy and hold. The last year or two were the exception, not the norm.
I agree. Now may well be the time to be greedy. Also you may have a percent or 2 less performance. The model is set up to protect against the exception. Especially when you are in the distribution stage of your financial plan.adrian2 wrote:Sure, but my point was that nowadays it's time to be greedy.deaddog wrote:So how do you be fearful if not by unloading some of your profits? Then you can take advantage of fearful times.
Once again, my main objection to your strategy is being whipsawed, time and time again. The gains you may make minus the whipsaws, in the long run, will likely underperform buy and hold. The last year or two were the exception, not the norm.
So which one of the portfolio's is better for someone starting retirement now, what are advisors recommending now, what were they recommending before?
Income - 8 years in, 4% (no inflation increase) x 1mil = withdrawn $320,000 about $775,000 left
Balanced $650,000 left
Growth $550,000
Income - 3 years in $910,000 left withdrawn about $120,000
Balanced $860,000
Growth $ $825,000
With only a non inflated $40,000 to live on and I would think a pretty nice starting value of 1 million the growth investor may have to adjust there withdraw rate going forward. Almost half there money gone in the first 8 years. Yes there could be a market recovery but is it wise to draw down another $40,000 plus for year 9?
Income - 8 years in, 4% (no inflation increase) x 1mil = withdrawn $320,000 about $775,000 left
Balanced $650,000 left
Growth $550,000
Income - 3 years in $910,000 left withdrawn about $120,000
Balanced $860,000
Growth $ $825,000
With only a non inflated $40,000 to live on and I would think a pretty nice starting value of 1 million the growth investor may have to adjust there withdraw rate going forward. Almost half there money gone in the first 8 years. Yes there could be a market recovery but is it wise to draw down another $40,000 plus for year 9?
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
An update for the Y2K retiree under 4% withdrawals.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
Stop alarming people and start the y-axis at zero.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Norbert Schlenker
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 7960
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
- Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
- Contact:
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
Move along, nothing to see here.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
But even worse is those side-by-side graphs in the financial pages with differently-scaled non-zeroed y-axes . Clarity be damned. Graphic artists rule .Shakespeare wrote:Stop alarming people and start the y-axis at zero.
Peter
Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 11 Jun 2009 19:47
- Location: Ottawa
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
These charts are interesting. One thing I wonder is whether or not a real Y2K retiree would have his portfolio resembling something like FPX Growth or FPX Balanced. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to retire with a portfolio that looked something like FPX Income? If so, the hit wasn't so big.
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
I have no doubt there were many Y2K retirees who retired on a 4% SWR basis (and in the absence of other significant assets like DB pensions) with a biased equity portfolio assuming even 50% of the equity growth of the '90s would continue. The hell with formulae like '100 - age = FI component'. Perceived success over a sustained period of time breeds cockiness and dangerous assumptions. I know folks who had to go back to work because of the expectation 'reasonable' (in their minds) stock market growth would continue.investnoob wrote:These charts are interesting. One thing I wonder is whether or not a real Y2K retiree would have his portfolio resembling something like FPX Growth or FPX Balanced. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to retire with a portfolio that looked something like FPX Income? If so, the hit wasn't so big.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: The Plight of the Y2K Retiree
I retired in 1998. My overall allocation has always been similar to FPX Balanced overall, but I have significantly outperformed the benchmark by good luck in security selection.whether or not a real Y2K retiree would have his portfolio resembling something like FPX Growth or FPX Balanced
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones