I read an interesting article written by Van Harlow, Ph.D., CFA, Director of Research at Putnam. It is not about the accumulation phase, but my next phase,
attempting to draw an income for the next 30 years. It is different! It is not a program or plan Putman is selling, it is a paper which supposedly addresses
peopole who are worried about their income, and want to know the odds that it will LAST until death.....and oh yeah....they want it to be as low-risk as possible.
It is too coplicated for me to attempt to explain; however the focus in on greatly reduced investment in equities (10,15,20 percent), with the balance spread between bonds and cash. He is using the following yields in his calculations: equities 6%; bonds 3%, and cash 1%. Rather than attempting to predict an accumulation value
(although that is a factor) the purpose is to find the value of a future cash, factoring mortality, and estimating the amount of income a rettiree can draw. And his numbers are far ahead of the normal 4% rule.
Would like to hear your thoughts if you have read this. if you have not read it, you might find it interesting; not necessiarly acceptable, but interesting!
Retirement Present Value
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Retirement Present Value
I don't know which paper you read. I've read several from Putnam Institute (where van Harlow is director). I've yet to see any where they address companies which have a long history of growing their dividend year after year. Known as dividend growth investing (dgi) this approach is substantially different than run of the mill equity investing. It is trivial right now to have a well diversified portfolio yielding over 3%. It is rather harder to get over 4% as many of the qualified companies have been bid up quite a bit over the last 3 or so years. The key things with this approach are first that the dividend payouts grow, historically significantly faster than inflation. Second, for every dollar you get in dividends you avoid the need to sell assets, which is critical during market decline or stagnation.Arch wrote: I read an interesting article written by Van Harlow, Ph.D., CFA, Director of Research at Putnam. It is not about the accumulation phase, but my next phase,
attempting to draw an income for the next 30 years.
Re: Retirement Present Value
The article is dated June 2011......titled, Optional Asset Allocation in Retirement: A Downside Risk Perspective.
I'm not positive, but I do not remember the article ever using ther word, "dividend." He used stocks and equities, but
it did not make any recommendation.
There are several other articles addressing the topic, but only one ever mentioned a product. In a 3rd or 4th article
they mentioned an absolute return product by Putnam. Outside of that, there was no mention of product at all.
I'm not positive, but I do not remember the article ever using ther word, "dividend." He used stocks and equities, but
it did not make any recommendation.
There are several other articles addressing the topic, but only one ever mentioned a product. In a 3rd or 4th article
they mentioned an absolute return product by Putnam. Outside of that, there was no mention of product at all.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Retirement Present Value
"Two percent is bullet-proof, 3% is probably safe, 4% is pushing it and, at 5%, you're eating Alpo in your old age,"
-William J. Bernstein
-William J. Bernstein
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Retirement Present Value
See also this excellent essay by Todd Tresidder which explains why the traditional 4% rule is not as safe as most people think.
http://financialmentor.com/free-article ... eally-safe
http://financialmentor.com/free-article ... eally-safe
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Re: Retirement Present Value
I'm glad the 4% withdrawal mantra is finally being discredited.
I remember first hearing that in the mid-1990's and the presenter (a CFP) was totally unable to address my concerns about the effects of negative returns and asset sales into that declining market. Well, he tried... "keep more money as cash so you don't have to sell assets." My response was, "but that means I'll have lower returns, so I'll have to spend less." "No, 4% is the safe number." "But that cannot be in all situations." "The math proves it." etc.
I think 4% sticks because that way they don't have to think, and they cannot be held responsible for giving out "industry standard" advice.
I remember first hearing that in the mid-1990's and the presenter (a CFP) was totally unable to address my concerns about the effects of negative returns and asset sales into that declining market. Well, he tried... "keep more money as cash so you don't have to sell assets." My response was, "but that means I'll have lower returns, so I'll have to spend less." "No, 4% is the safe number." "But that cannot be in all situations." "The math proves it." etc.
I think 4% sticks because that way they don't have to think, and they cannot be held responsible for giving out "industry standard" advice.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Retirement Present Value
Relevant threads:
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=2
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=7
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=2
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=7
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!