Old French saying:blonde wrote:It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Youth and Wisdom at the same time.
Si jeunesse savait... Si vieillesse pouvait...
(Rough translation: If youth knew, if old age could act.)
George
Old French saying:blonde wrote:It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Youth and Wisdom at the same time.
There have been some significant changes in British Columbia regarding probate, estate law, and wills.kcowan wrote:For ten years, we had our will set up with two sons as joint trustees for a charitable trust. On the last iteration 5 years ago, we simplified it to 50% to charity and the remainder split between them. We decided that the trust was too much like trying to manage from the grave.SQRT wrote:...Our plans can change. I am wondering if setting up a charitable foundation with my daughter as trustee, might be a good idea? Any way, I don't expect others to share my views on this but I thought I would give you my perspective.
The traditional translation is "if the young but knew, if the old only could."ghariton wrote:Old French saying:blonde wrote:It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Youth and Wisdom at the same time.
Si jeunesse savait... Si vieillesse pouvait...
(Rough translation: If youth knew, if old age could act.)
George
This one? How much money can retirees safely withdraw? - The Globe and MailSQRT wrote:There was an interesting article in the G&M today by McGugan concerning the 4% SWR.
If I've Googled correctly, the published articles are:Ian McGugan wrote:Jonathan Guyton, a financial planner with Cornerstone Wealth Advisors in Minneapolis, has published several articles outlining a rule-based strategy that adjusts withdrawals depending on how your portfolio has fared.
This discussion has been a mainstay of FWF since it opened, check out Sustainable Withdrawal Rates and the corresponding wiki article, Sustainable withdrawal.Wade Pfau wrote:Jonathan Guyton and Michael Kitces discuss further about systematic withdrawals and safe withdrawal rates. Michael explains the origins of William Bengen’s initial research on the 4% rule. They also discuss the potential upside from using the 4% rule, the inclusion of additional asset classes, the role of market valuations in guiding the initial sustainable withdrawal rate, and the impact of variable spending on the safe withdrawal rate. Michael reminds that the 4% rule was never meant to be an autopilot guide to sustainable spending over 30 years.
The original press release 2014 NPW National News Release and 2014 CPA NPW Employee Survey Findings, for those interested in looking further into the details themselves.Retiring older and needing more retirement savings
Fully 79% expect to delay retirement until age 60 or older – up from 70% over the past three years. The number one reason cited for retiring later in life is that employees are not able to save enough money.
When we first retired, we used the 4% SWR as a guide to determine just what our retirement spending should be. For example, if we had had $1Million in retirement savings, we would be able to spend $40k pa. Plus pensions. And all before tax.SQRT wrote:Thanks for all that great stuff. I was wondering more about what people have actually done or plan to do.
My portfolio is all income producing, and admittedly, that income has slowly been reducing over the last few years as a result of low interest rates on GIC's) . I don't pay attention to the % SWR. I just look at the income that is generated and use the amount that I need. I never (after eight years of retirement) touch the principal. I am lucky that the income produced is much higher than I need, but if it wasn't, I guess I'd be dipping into the principal. The % SWR means nothing to me.SQRT wrote:Thanks for all that great stuff. I was wondering more about what people have actually done or plan to do.
I agree and have spent considerable time kicking this idea around along with a what I cheekily call BRIAN5000 risk, which is when a person saves a disproportionately large amount and remains overly frugal. For myself, the reason I view this as a risk is two fold: risk of premature death (in terms of the life cycle of investing) and the possibility of a life less lived. All because a person is unwilling and/or unable to adapt their mindset as their life circumstances (dramatically) change.AltaRed wrote:Most retirees do not have the luxury of living only off the income thrown off by their investments. Hence % SWR is a somewhat meaningful exercise in that a financial planner can show them how they can draw down a portion of their capital each year to live a little better than just eating dog food for the remaining days of their lives and then finding out they die at 95 with twice the capital that they started with (exaggeration intended).
LOL, good one, theres good examples and bad examples I believe people can learn from both. I think I'm a good example of a "dumb-ass retail investor" Over the last 3 years my plan has evolved a bit not sure if its good or bad yet.what I cheekily call BRIAN5000 risk, which is when a person saves a disproportionately large amount and remains overly frugal
We're all here to learn from one another and you are no dumbass investor. Along with an individual I met at work when I was younger, your posts over the years made me think along the lines of 'risk of having much more than I need decades from now'. Investing is part of the game but we're all deferring consumption so that we (or our heirs) can consume a greater amount at a later time. In my view, not enough discussion is had about what to do with the winnings.BRIAN5000 wrote:LOL, good one, theres good examples and bad examples I believe people can learn from both. I think I'm a good example of a "dumb-ass retail investor" Over the last 3 years my plan has evolved a bit not sure if its good or bad yet.what I cheekily call BRIAN5000 risk, which is when a person saves a disproportionately large amount and remains overly frugal
Keeping the discussion about normal people, i.e. assuming no desire to live like a jet set celebrity, what you have described is best scenario a person can wind up in. I think it's also the one which requires the most creativity think through and takes significant courage to expand a person's willingness to experiment. People like you are in the best place there is for turning thought experiments into reality. Is there anything you wanted to do but the time was never right or couldn't justify the cost? Anything appeal to you that your friends and family mock you for wanting to try or self limiting beliefs prevented you from making a serious go of it?SQRT wrote: Very useful, thanks. This is exactly what I was wondering about. Theory is fine and certainly a good starting point, but how does one maximize "the life lived" (great phrase, BTW). while keeping an eye on the risk of running out or not being able to bequeath to an heir.
My experience so far: just spending portfolio (100% equity) income and pension. Portfolio has grown to the point where I am thinking I could liquidate maybe 3-5% and not effect future prospects much. Not sure what I would do with this cash though. Maybe help daughter buy a house? Upgrade some real estate? Could just let it ride but at some point the market will correct and I might wish I had sold some.
I had no problem with the 4% SWR and prior to the latest US housing crisis, anticipated doing this in retirement. My confirmation bias convinced me that if I followed Buffett's "sell-off" approach that the long-term compounding of my portfolio would be more than enough to compensate for a 4% SWR. My portfolio consisted of individual stocks. Most of the value being in 3-4 stocks.SQRT wrote:There was an interesting article in the G&M today by McGugan concerning the 4% SWR. The author referred to papers written by a fellow (Guyton) that suggests the 4% rule is too conservative if you adjust your withdrawals so as to reflect your portfolio's current performance. This seems intuitive and reasonable to me. Has anyone else thought about this?
Thanks for the advice. Can't think of much at this point but great to have the option. Daughters wedding coming up and the cost of real estate in Toronto is crazy, so some will go there. Cheers.FinEcon wrote:Keeping the discussion about normal people, i.e. assuming no desire to live like a jet set celebrity, what you have described is best scenario a person can wind up in. I think it's also the one which requires the most creativity think through and takes significant courage to expand a person's willingness to experiment. People like you are in the best place there is for turning thought experiments into reality. Is there anything you wanted to do but the time was never right or couldn't justify the cost? Anything appeal to you that your friends and family mock you for wanting to try or self limiting beliefs prevented you from making a serious go of it?SQRT wrote: Very useful, thanks. This is exactly what I was wondering about. Theory is fine and certainly a good starting point, but how does one maximize "the life lived" (great phrase, BTW). while keeping an eye on the risk of running out or not being able to bequeath to an heir.
My experience so far: just spending portfolio (100% equity) income and pension. Portfolio has grown to the point where I am thinking I could liquidate maybe 3-5% and not effect future prospects much. Not sure what I would do with this cash though. Maybe help daughter buy a house? Upgrade some real estate? Could just let it ride but at some point the market will correct and I might wish I had sold some.
All I can say is that I am glad I started investing in my late teens because odds are, financially speaking, I will end up like many of you guys. And that's why we're all at the FWF in the first place.
Reading the first sentence of that article made me think there may be more to his happiness than just Thoreauvian simplicity ...apater wrote:"a pretty good life"
My portfolio generates sufficient cash flow for my needs.SQRT wrote:@Flaccid: does your portfolio generate sufficient cash flow for your needs or do you have to liquidate holdings from time to time?