Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Does It Make Sense To Treat Your Portfolio Like An Endowment?

edited March 2015 in Fund Discussions
Junkster recently mused in a post about striking a balance between reaping now and sowing for the future as we manage our individual portfolios during our "retirement" years. The article in this link suggests it may be appropriate to plan on living to 100 as we consider this question. It also suggests we manage our individual portfolios like endowments, seeking to balance annual withdrawals and portfolio growth to avoid eroding the principal.

The idea of looking at our individual situations and then deciding on an amount to set aside for the future -- be it the nominal or inflation adjusted principal or some other amount -- makes sense to me. (It is the basic approach I use to manage my portfolio.) The decided upon amount can be set aside for use if a dramatic future increase in medical and related care expenses requires it. And, it can include additional funds to be left to our heirs and/or to do good things in the world after we are gone. The remainder of the ongoing total returns in our individual portfolios can be reaped now.

The success of this approach assumes we will avoid doing too much reaping after one or two good years. So, "Reaping Now" needs to be averaged over some number of years. But, the idea that we each need to have a conversation with ourselves and make peace with much we want to be setting aside "indefinitely" for the future makes sense to me.

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/03/12/the-100-year-old-portfolio-investments-for-a-long-life

Comments

  • I plan finances up to 85-87yo.....that way I know my plan will come true (work), your plan to 100yo is dead (no pun) to Start
  • edited March 2015
    davfor said:

    Junkster recently mused in a post about striking a balance between reaping now and sowing for the future as we manage our individual portfolios during our "retirement" years. The article in this link suggests it may be appropriate to plan on living to 100 as we consider this question. It also suggests we manage our individual portfolios like endowments, seeking to balance annual withdrawals and portfolio growth to avoid eroding the principal.

    The idea of looking at our individual situations and then deciding on an amount to set aside for the future -- be it the nominal or inflation adjusted principal or some other amount -- makes sense to me. (It is the basic approach I use to manage my portfolio.) The decided upon amount can be set aside for use if a dramatic future increase in medical and related care expenses requires it. And, it can include additional funds to be left to our heirs and/or to do good things in the world after we are gone. The remainder of the ongoing total returns in our individual portfolios can be reaped now.

    The success of this approach assumes we will avoid doing too much reaping after one or two good years. So, "Reaping Now" needs to be averaged over some number of years. But, the idea that we each need to have a conversation with ourselves and make peace with much we want to be setting aside "indefinitely" for the future makes sense to me.

    http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/03/12/the-100-year-old-portfolio-investments-for-a-long-life

    I have figured out for sure that I'll never have the comfortable amounts that get referenced in investing articles from newspapers and magazines. Half a million? Not gonna happen. I have to take satisfaction that between wifey and myself, our "heirs" are recipients from time to time already, in no small way. Life's not fair. But it's LOTS more unfair to some others. And so, we do our part to even the score. "It's a good thing." (---uncle Martha Stewart.)
  • I always remember my first investment (an IRA) for $2,500, I think after a year it was worth $2650..... I said to myself this investing will never amount to anything...
    After 30years...no (real) money worries.......surprise yourself
  • edited March 2015

    Don't know if it makes sense or not. But, I do tend to view our investments (mostly IRAs) as an endowment. Viewing them that way makes investing a lot less stressful, allows me to take more risks than I might otherwise, and encourages a more patient long term approach. But I think the trick here is to need to withdraw only smaller quantities in any given year.

    In '08 we dropped 21%. In '09 we gained a bit over 28%. The first experience did not depress us or shake our confidence. The second did not elate us. We consider these types of fluxuations part of the normal flow of investing.

    We get along pretty well on pensions and SS. Our needs are few. Our situation may not be typical and so this approach may not work for everyone. Has nothing to do with leaving something to heirs. Just a way of investing I've gotten used to. It's nice to grow your nest egg. But, I also think investing should be enjoyable. Take the joy out of it and what's left?

  • edited March 2015
    Tampabay said:

    I plan finances up to 85-87yo.....that way I know my plan will come true (work), your plan to 100yo is dead (no pun) to Start

    At 65, I am a "young" retiree. Doing some harvesting each year from investments provides a significant portion of the annual funds that get spent in our household. The life expectancy table linked below tells me I have a 50% chance of living to be 89 and a 25% chance of living to be 97. That is almost forever from this "youngsters" perspective. And, those numbers are in line with other materials I have read. So, treating my portfolio something like an annuity seems reasonable....almost without even considering the probability of increased "old" age expenses and any wish to have some money left over when I am gone. Tracking my annual nominal and inflation adjusted return on investments net of all withdrawals and then averaging that information over multiple years helps me keep our annual spending within sustainable bounds. This method could also be used to help guide a path to $0 in some future year.

    http://gosset.wharton.upenn.edu/mortality/perl/CalcForm.html
  • edited March 2015
    I won't make it to 100 but the odds of my wife getting there are quite good. Disregarding the @Tampabay comments (frequently a good idea), my plan will most definitely work until 100, with plenty left over.
  • Anyone have an annuity? I realize they are a bad deal and their onefold purpose is peace of mind. But when I turn 70 in 2 years if I put 17.5% of my portfolio in an immediate annuity it (plus my Social Security) would cover all my annual expenses and then some. New York Life is the only insurance company I would ever consider if I went that doubtful route.
  • edited March 2015
    Junkster said:

    Anyone have an annuity? I realize they are a bad deal and their onefold purpose is peace of mind. But when I turn 70 in 2 years if I put 17.5% of my portfolio in an immediate annuity it (plus my Social Security) would cover all my annual expenses and then some. New York Life is the only insurance company I would ever consider if I went that doubtful route.

    Nevermind, if I got a 1.30% annual return on my portfolio it would equal what I would get from the annuity plus I wouldn't have to throw away the 17.5% in the process.

    Edit: I am as guilty as anyone, but I think most of us overestimate our longevity.
  • "Never mind, if I got a 1.30% annual return on my portfolio it would equal what I would get from the annuity plus I wouldn't have to throw away the 17.5% in the process."

    Exactamente!
  • @Junkster
    Is any of your portfolio or at least enough to generate some cash flow when you would have to have RMD (required minimum distribution)? Would this amount combined with SS be enough? 'Course, I am sure you could always draw as needed from the taxable accounts, eh?
    Take care of yourself, and hoping no flooding in your area.
    Catch
  • edited March 2015
    catch22 said:

    @Junkster
    Is any of your portfolio or at least enough to generate some cash flow when you would have to have RMD (required minimum distribution)? Would this amount combined with SS be enough? 'Course, I am sure you could always draw as needed from the taxable accounts, eh?
    Take care of yourself, and hoping no flooding in your area.
    Catch

    93% of my portfolio is IRA and unfortunately all taxable. But on the positive side, when I do have to begin RMD, after paying taxes it will cover my annual expenses and discretionary (after Social Security) almost threefold. The key is being debt free!
  • Exactamente!
  • @Junkster

    There you go then.........all set, not unlike at this house.
  • http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/retirement-reality-5-charts-you-need-to-see.html/?a=viewall

    I've always been intrigued how much annually we spend in retirement. Obviously where we live and if married or single among other factors has an impact. The above link has some interesting retirements facts. For instance, $44897 is the average household spending for those 65-74. I would assume that is a married household. In my local community and surrounding areas I know more than a few single retirees who are doing just fine on $35,000 to $40,000 a year. That includes discretionary expenses ala trips and cruises. Then again, I live in Mayberry and about 30 years behind the times where expenses are very low.
  • Retirement spending = peanuts (compared to what I used to spend) Income becomes a non-issue
Sign In or Register to comment.