If I took the 4% rule literally,,,, which I definitely don’t, what would be a low cost 50/ 50 ETF that follows Bengen’s rules? I understand one could use the appropriate equity and bond ETF but let’s say I wanted the ultimate simplicity. As for me I have no interest or need for a 50% equity exposure but the 4 % rule is talked about so often and most of those discussions never mention the exposure that must be maintained. Come to think about it that might an idea: the 4% solution ETF.
Comments
in the Dec. 1997 Journal of Financial Planning. His recommended range for stock allocation
was between 50% and 75% for a 65 year-old investor.
"Because withdrawal rates within the recommended range of stocks are essentially equal,
they are not very useful in selecting stock allocation.
For another view of the matter, consider Chart 10, which depicts the nominal wealth built up
in a portfolio after 30 years, for a retiree who began withdrawing four percent the first year.
The two stock allocations displayed, 50 percent and 75 percent, represent the extreme ends
of the 'recommended range' for this investor at age-65 retirement."
PDF1
Edit/Add: Bengen published Conserving Client Portfolios During Retirement, Part IV
in the May 2001 Journal of Financial Planning. Two alternative withdrawal strategies are explored.
PDF2
You can always combine AOR and AOM and let it sit. Not the highest returns, but it might suit your guideline.
I myself aim toward 50-50 Fido mm and JQUA (or QLTY, or TCAF, or simply VONG or VONE, and I'm not saying that they are that similar).
Nonresponsively, when Fido mm declines under ... ? 4% ? ... I might reconsider the above and move toward some combo of FBALX (or FPACX) and FMSDX.
kiss and all that.
These days, many allocation funds invest a significant fraction of their equity sleeve abroad. IMHO that's not a bad thing, but it is different. A related "problem" is that allocation funds often invest some money into small cap stocks. While this is different from Bengen's original work, it could be an improvement: https://www.fa-mag.com/news/creator-of-4--rule-says-new-withdrawal-target-is-4-7-71026.html
That page goes on to say that these days, Bengen says that "the optimum stock allocation that allows the highest withdrawal rate over the long term is between 55% and 60% over the long term."
That suggests that you might look at 60/40 funds, of which there are many. As to what Bengen himself is doing, rather than using his stated static allocation "he uses a third-party service that recommends changes to his asset allocation based on perceived changes in the marketplace."
In short, consider looking at funds closer to 60/40. VBIAX (0.07% ER) is a good starting point if ER is paramount, or VSMGX (0.12% ER) to add foreign exposure.
FWIW, here's a portfolio visualizer comparison of three 60/40 funds: AOR, VSMGX, and VBIAX. over roughly ten years (PV limitation). Starts with $10K, $400 (4%) annual withdrawal (inflation adjusted).
https://ficalc.app/
https://newretirement.com/
Article with other links:
decoding-the-chance-of-success-in-your-retirement-plan
Haghani, author of the missing billionaires, former LTCM guy, founder of elm wealth and who wrote the book doesn't think this is a great idea. You might/prolly run out of monies earlier than u think or leave a bunch on the table for the next gen to piss away on shiny objects.
Gives example of how a target date fund had a lot of pre-near-retirees heavy in bonds right when they were WAAAAYYYY overvalued and at the wrong time. Cost them a boat load via large drawdown.
Speaks to the utility of monies. Big on diversification. Not big on fancy nancy things like options for the average Joe (didn't mean to start that convo again, LOL!) what is your risk tolerance, longevity factors, current valuations etc. How can you straight line the 4% without taking these inputs into consideration.
Maybe the "guard rails way" is better, dunno?
Do like what dmoran refers to as KISS. something to be said about that for certain.
I don't know why anyone is concerned about the 4% "rule" nowadays when MMs and many bond funds pay MORE than 4%. You can get 4-5%+ and you don't have to sell anything.
Conditions will surely change -- but we don't know when or in which direction -- adjust as necessary.
Conditions will surely change -- but we don't know when or in which direction -- adjust as necessary
Simplicity: just stay the course, KISS, come hell or high water. No adjustments necessary.
Gives example of how a target date fund
Simplicity: Target date funds follow glide paths. The 4% rule hews to a fixed allocation.
How can you straight line the 4% without taking these inputs into consideration.
Starting in 1926, a 4% (inflation adjusted) withdrawal regimen from a 50/50 portfolio has never depleted assets in under 30 years. That includes starting in years like 1929, 1973, 1981, etc. The rule already incorporates objective risk, assuming past is prologue.
That's not to say that people are subjectively able to handle sequence of return risk. And some people may want to plan for more than 30 years, either because they expect a longer life in retirement or their end target value is not simply "better than $0". They want to leave a legacy. And stuff happens; people may not be able to keep to a 4% budget.
ISTM the biggest risk in the 4% rule is being left with too much money. Planning for worst case without adjustments is necessarily conservative and likely to "fail" on the upside (not spending enough). But by definition any strategy that includes making adjustments is not the simplest possible.
For those who want to limit the risk of underspending, are willing to accept some risk of having less to spend in some years than they might otherwise like, and can manage more complex strategies (or are willing to hire someone else to do that), @Observant1 cited a good discussion of a couple of such strategies.
Finally, using cash is very likely to fail. Over the past 96 years (1928-2023 inclusive), 3 mo. T-bill real returns have averaged 0.32%. (See cell T120 here.) Take 4%/year off of that and you're losing more than 3.5% annually. Even without compounding the loss, you'll run out of money in under 30 years.
is what you said, and so I asked the obvious followup
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Low_Tech"> Was that question for me?
I don't know why anyone is concerned about the 4% "rule" nowadays when MMs and many bond funds pay MORE than 4%. You can get 4-5%+ and you don't have to sell anything.
Conditions will surely change -- but we don't know when or in which direction -- adjust as necessary.
Nothing to do w 4% swd, which has always been low imo.
I moved part of my SCHD holdings into a MM a few months ago -- it pays more interest than SCHD and the principle is now stable. Why get 3.5% with a fluctuating share price when you can get 5% with a stable share price? I know I'm forfeiting growth but that's okay for now. I have other stock holdings.
>> I will move that money somewhere else
Where would that be?
Why are you so confused about all this? It's not complicated.
I'm a buy-and-holder, but that doesn't mean the same thing forever. Here's the key: "Conditions change."
As things are now, you could put $1M in a money fund and get over $50k a year in interest with no price fluctuation. A few years ago that wouldn't work. A few years from now that may not work either, or it could go up even more, a lot more.
says the guy who could not read, understand, or answer the simplest of questions, and moreover does not know how to spell principal
you will probably (not sure) find that posters here actually are pretty literate
Wade Pfau has a long 1+ hour podcast (8/1/24), and an early segment within is for testing the 4% Rule globally. It failed for most countries. It almost worked for Australia but it was a 3% Rule instead. So, the 4% Rule is something unique to the US and possibly Canada.
Edit - As the YouTube link opened as an embedded link, note the the relevant segments starts around 7:40.
Link to related 2010 paper, https://tinyurl.com/3299f69j