Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
MWKXJ
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MWKXJ » Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:25 pm

ochotona wrote: One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
Tried rebalancing once a month when following 200 day moving averages via an Ivy portfolio in my VP and failed miserably; could not tear my eyes off of stockcharts.com.  This was doubly the case when the trendlines were moving strongly one way or another in the period immediately before the allotted day for rebalancing.  In such a situation, it is far too tempting to wait "one more day", and then, inevitably, one will begin picking and choosing which days to rebalance for each asset class, and soon after, checking charts all the time.

A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by ochotona » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:09 pm

MWKXJ wrote: Tried rebalancing once a month when following 200 day moving averages via an Ivy portfolio in my VP and failed miserably; could not tear my eyes off of stockcharts.com.  This was doubly the case when the trendlines were moving strongly one way or another in the period immediately before the allotted day for rebalancing.  In such a situation, it is far too tempting to wait "one more day", and then, inevitably, one will begin picking and choosing which days to rebalance for each asset class, and soon after, checking charts all the time.

A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
Meb Faber warns that it's emotionally tough to do this kind of work, for exactly the reasons you cite. It's like "training for a marathon", he writes. I agree. But the risk reduction benefits are so strong, I just can't let it go without trying.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:30 pm

Dmilligan wrote: MG, I'm hoping the .31% number is incorrect. Because that would mean that my annual percentage sustainable draw off a $1M PP is only $3,100! I was planning on the annual draw being closer to $40K!
Yes, I now believe it is wrong.  I just can't figure out why.  I see no obvious errors.  50% of a previous value is half then it splits again and again into infinity and never actually reaches zero.  So I must be calculating this WR wrong.  Lets see what Tyler says.
"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!
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:35 pm

MWKXJ wrote: A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
None of them exist yet for simplistic trend following, but more sophisticated risk management does.  If you're interested, see the Hedgeable thread (ask Reub for an invite so he gets the reward points, as well as some yourself).  There's also another service that I'm watching but it is still in beta.  Both are run by Bridgewater alumni.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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!
Jack Jones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Jack Jones » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:48 pm

ochotona wrote:
Jack Jones wrote:
My understanding of timing is that it's a way to reduce volatility (not increase returns). So why go through all the trouble with a portfolio that already has low volatility?
This is a key point... volatility does not equal risk. You might say, volatility is one kind of risk. But you can have a low volatility portfolio that has very smooth "returns", but those "returns" might be zero, or negative.

My Dad used to say his 1960s Buicks had nice smooth rides, they made he feel safe. He also could not control it in an emergency situation.
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point (and you said it was key, so I'd like to understand!)

I was saying that the Permanent Portfolio already has low volatility so market timing isn't likely to reduce it by much. Why not apply SMA trendfollowing to a more volatile portfolio with higher returns and bring the volatility down to PP levels but keeping the higher returns:

Image
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:51 pm

Jack Jones wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point (and you said it was key, so I'd like to understand!)
He meant low volatility isn't the same thing as low MaxDD.  Low volatility porfolios tend to have infrequent left bell curve fat tail spikes that wind up "surprising" everyone.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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!
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2748
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Cortopassi » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:55 pm

I've tried timing before, failed miserably.  Stressed out constantly.  PP removed all that.  No way am I a timer in any fashion!  My timing will either be annual or the bands.
Test of the signature line
iwealth
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by iwealth » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:03 pm

dutchtraffic wrote:
ochotona wrote:
dutchtraffic wrote: Simply following a 200 day MA will get you stopped out all over the place.
One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
Once a month will be very risky, and just randomly looking at some charts, that creates some MAJOR losses.
Do you have backtesting data to back this up or is this just an assumption?
User avatar
lordmetroid
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:53 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by lordmetroid » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:06 pm

Great tool, I used it and decided to trash my cash and buy Small Cap Stocks instead. I know, I know, I said I would not tinker but according to these simulations the Small Cap Stocks wouldn't necessarily do any harm to the volatility. How that is possible, I have no idea.
dutchtraffic
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by dutchtraffic » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:06 pm

iwealth wrote:
dutchtraffic wrote:
ochotona wrote: One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
Once a month will be very risky, and just randomly looking at some charts, that creates some MAJOR losses.
Do you have backtesting data to back this up or is this just an assumption?
Not backtested at all, just looking at some random indices and seeing 10-20% drops if using that strategy.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Tyler » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:24 pm

MachineGhost wrote: This is my formula to calculate the running balance:

=SUM($W13:$AQ13)/(1+SUM($AV13,$AW13))

Where W:AQ are the weighted asset returns, AV is yoy inflation rate and AW is the WR.
It appears you're never actually reaching zero because you're using a WR that is a percentage of the remaining portfolio instead of only the first year.  Most classic SWR studies (and my own calculations) assume that expenses are fixed in year one and adjusted up for inflation every year independent of portfolio value along the way.  That's why volatility particularly hurts the SWR -- the portfolio may drop, but the retirement expenses do not!  You need to subtract expenses, not divide them.

I suggest using a systematic approach.  Take an initial portfolio value, and calculate the annual retirement expenses from the initial SWR.  Subtract that from the portfolio value (that assumes expenses are set aside at the beginning of the year).  Then adjust the balance by the real return of the portfolio for that year.  Rinse and repeat, always using the same fixed expenses from year one (By using real returns, you keep the expenses in constant dollars.  If you use nominal returns, be sure to increase the expenses at the rate of inflation).  Once you have a final portfolio value after a certain number of years, you can use that to tinker with the initial WR percentage to level the end point wherever you like (zero for SafeWR, or initial principal for SustWR).  Make sense?
Last edited by Tyler on Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mechanical engineer, history buff, treasure manager... totally not Ben Gates
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:40 pm

Tyler wrote: It appears you're never actually reaching zero because you're using a WR that is a percentage of the remaining portfolio instead of only the first year.  Most classic SWR studies (and my own calculations) assume that expenses are fixed in year one and adjusted up for inflation every year independent of portfolio value along the way.  That's why volatility particularly hurts the SWR -- the portfolio may drop, but the retirement expenses do not!  You need to subtract expenses, not divide them.

I suggest using a systematic approach.  Take an initial portfolio value, and calculate the annual retirement expenses from the initial SWR.  Subtract that from the portfolio value (that assumes expenses are set aside at the beginning of the year).  Then adjust the balance by the real return of the portfolio for that year.  Rinse and repeat, always using the same fixed expenses from year one (By using real returns, you keep the expenses in constant dollars.  If you use nominal returns, be sure to increase the expenses at the rate of inflation).  Once you have a final portfolio value after a certain number of years, you can use that to tinker with the initial WR percentage to level the end point wherever you like (zero for SafeWR, or initial principal for SustWR).  Make sense?
Thanks!  Here's the new results:

100% Stocks: SafeWR for 88 years (1928) is 3.41%; SustainWR is 3.20%.
50%/50% 10yr: SafeWR for 88 years (1928) is 2.25%; SustainWR is 1.70%.

100% Stocks: SafeWR for 49 years (1965) is 1.52%; SustainWR is 0.74%.
50%/50% 10yr: SafeWR for 49 years (1965) is 1.22%; SustainWR is 0.20%.
Browne PP: SafeWR for 49 years (1965) is 1.64%; SustainWR is 0.26%.

Browne PP: SafeWR for 46 years (1968) is 1.63%; SustainWR is 0.18%.

Browne PP: SafeWR for 42 years (1972) is 2.08%; SustainWR is 0.53%.

If its still not right, I give up for now.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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!
Dmilligan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:49 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Dmilligan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 3:30 pm

I utilized MG's data for 1965-1971 and the Craig/Simba's data for 1972+. I took withdrawals from cash and rebalanced at the 15/35 bands. Here are the results that I get:

For a retirement in 1966:

Portfolio: $3M
Constant WR: 4.7%
1966 withdrawal from cash: $141,000
2014 withdrawal from cash: $1,090,762
1966 inflation-adjusted amount: $1,066,922

No. of individual years outpacing inflation: 14.29%

If 50% of years outpacing inflation, CWR is 4.4%
If 75% of years outpacing inflation, CWR is 3.7%

For a retirement in 1965:

Portfolio: $3M
Constant WR: 4.9%
1965 withdrawal from cash: $147,000
2014 withdrawal from cash: $1,134,909
1965 inflation-adjusted amount: $1,095,766

No. of individual years outpacing inflation: 40.00%

If 50% of years outpacing inflation, CWR is 4.6%
If 75% of years outpacing inflation, CWR is 4.2%

[EDIT] I completely forgot to mention that--in addition to withdrawing out of the cash component--these results are computed utilizing a Robert Clyatt withdrawal method where at least 95% of the previous year is utilized, even if it exceeds the initial CWR.
Last edited by Dmilligan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:02 pm

i will only state it one last time , you have zero accurate reference for gold going back to anytime  pre 1975 .  .. you can guess and assume all you want but you have no accurate data to utilize that asset class  in a meaningful way if back testing it for a comparable safe withdrawal rate against what the  standards mean . ..
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:57 pm

mathjak107 wrote: i will only state it one last time , you have zero accurate reference for gold going back to anytime  pre 1975 .  .. you can guess and assume all you want but you have no accurate data to utilize that asset class  in a meaningful way if back testing it for a comparable safe withdrawal rate against what the  standards mean . ..
You do realize gold broke free of its fix in 1968, right?  The legality of not buying it domestically in the USA is irrelevant to the gold price being available.  It's just a simulation so we can see what might happen.  Path dependency for putting a portfolio together is an illusion.  It's not hard to be conservative with the WR with these caveats in mind.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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!
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:00 pm

it was not publicly owned until 1975  so it is not really fair trying to utilize an asset before it could be legally owned unless you were a coin collector .

you can't possibly want to do this comparison to the point of bringing  in data that is just DIS-INGENIOUS
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:06 pm

mathjak107 wrote: it was not publicly owned until 1975  so it is not really fair trying to utilize an asset before it could be legally owned unless you were a coin collector .

you can't possibly want to do this comparison to the point of bringing  in data that is just DIS-INGENIOUS
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.  You want the mirage of exactness, I want fuzzy logic.
"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!
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:08 pm

that is well beyond fuzzy logic my friend    .  counting what is not legal to own nor trades publicly in this country  because it makes the numbers look better is not the right thing to do . the right thing to do is just accept the fact you can not make a comparison in that time frame .  you trying to fill in the missing  data is as i said dis-ingenious at best .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:09 pm

mathjak107 wrote: that is well beyond fuzzy logic my friend    .  counting what isnot legal to own so it makes the numbers look better is not the right thing to do . the right thing to do is just accept the fact you cn not make a comparison in that time frame .
1) It wasn't enforced.
1a) It sure as hell wasn't going to be enforced overseas.
2) There was junk silver.

The only reason it even became legal again in 1975 was because of Ron Paul.  No one cared otherwise.  Do today's PPers strike you as being sheep led to the slaughter or would they have found a way to protect their ASSets back then?  After all, Browne figured this out in time to write a book about it in 1970.  Did the illegality stop him?
"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!
Dmilligan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:49 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Dmilligan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:38 pm

mathjak107 wrote: it was not publicly owned until 1975  so it is not really fair trying to utilize an asset before it could be legally owned unless you were a coin collector .

you can't possibly want to do this comparison to the point of bringing  in data that is just DIS-INGENIOUS
The gold component in the first few years doesn't appear to drastically affect the end results. Previously, I was utilizing historical annual gold prices as set by Treasury ($35.50, $35.40, etc.). The sustainable CWR was still 4.6% (compared to 4.7% with the data MG provided) for 1996.

I'm not necessarily looking for some exact percentage to take as a set-in-stone, guaranteed-not-to-fail CWR percentage. I'm more interested in modeling 1966 as the worst year for retirement to give me some confidence that my PP will sustain me in the manner in which my family is accustomed to living.

I also wanted to satisfy my personal curiosity whether 1966 would vary dramatically from the numbers from Tyler's sustainable WR calculator. I have satisfied myself that it doesn't.

I'm feeling pretty good that using Robert Clyatt's withdrawal technique would have worked with the HPP, even in a 1966 retirement year scenario.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:44 pm

gold did  not trade here publicly with the same greed , fear and perception it might have if it was legal and traded on an exchange here  and  you making up what you think  for god knows what purpose is  just  silly .

you do not need to back test the pp anymore . all back testing did is create the math for modern day retirement planning .

thanks to the work of kitces  we can monitor any portfolio going forward and know whether it is on track  .

analyzing all those time frames before the pp even existed  showed us all the failures had failed mathematically because of one common denominator .

they all  needed to maintain a 2% real return average over the first 15 years of a 30 year period to support 4% withdrawals inflation adjusted .

so if you are 7 years in  to your retirement and are running less then a 2% real return average a red flag should wave .

unless things start trending up ,  withdrawals have to be cut back  because by 15 years all may be so badly spent down that even the best of times the next 15 years is to little to late to save the retirement from drastic pay cuts . .

all the back testing in history merely identified that simple math for us .  there is no reason to even back test the pp , you are just reinventing the wheel . .  it is all about the here and now if you are retired  and using the pp  and whether or not you are maintaining an average real return of 2% or more .

if you are not then mathematically you can't sustain 4% withdrawals inflation adjusted for 30 years . .

not that we spend like robots but that number could be your maximum budget  in the laboratory .

so while we can't accurately test the pp over  the time frames the 4% safe withdrawal rate is based on we certainly know going forward if the pp is meeting that criteria  in our own current  time frame .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dmilligan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:49 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Dmilligan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:29 pm

mathjak107 wrote: thanks to the work of kitces  we can monitor any portfolio going forward and know whether it is on track  .
I'm appreciative of Kitces work.

Are you aware of any research Kitces has published that looks at 50 years or a period longer than 30 years? Everything I've seen is based around 30 years.

Did Kitces explicitly model withdrawing from a cash component? One of the functional differences I find compelling about the HBPP is that one may go for years withdrawing without touching the other three components. This seems to affect withdrawal numbers in a way not appreciated in traditional retirement research.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Pointedstick » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:33 pm

mathjak107 wrote: gold did  not trade here publicly with the same greed , fear and perception it might have if it was legal and traded on an exchange here  and  you making up what you think  for god knows what purpose is  just  silly .
That's true of everything. The entire phenomenon of the non-wealthy, non-institutional retail investor only emerged in the late 70s to 80s; before that point, most ordinary joes like you and me keeps their money in savings accounts, savings bonds, bank CDs, etc. If there had been tax-deferred investment accounts, index funds, online trading, zero-commission funds, and a culture of retail investing, then who knows how the returns of various assets might have been affected? We can't, of course. The investment returns of the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, represent a vastly different era full of vastly different market actors. Maybe the existence of 401Ks, online brokerages, index funds, and a culture of stock ownership means that stocks will now behave in a predictably cyclical manner according to the career lifecycle of the retail investor classes rather than the fundamentals of the underlying businesses. It is in no way comparable to the environment that produced the historical returns that we are all familiar with.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Desert » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:33 pm

MachineGhost wrote:
mathjak107 wrote: i will only state it one last time , you have zero accurate reference for gold going back to anytime  pre 1975 .  .. you can guess and assume all you want but you have no accurate data to utilize that asset class  in a meaningful way if back testing it for a comparable safe withdrawal rate against what the  standards mean . ..
You do realize gold broke free of its fix in 1968, right?  The legality of not buying it domestically in the USA is irrelevant to the gold price being available.  It's just a simulation so we can see what might happen.  Path dependency for putting a portfolio together is an illusion.  It's not hard to be conservative with the WR with these caveats in mind.
It was August 1971, not 1968. 

Using gold prices before 1975 in backtesting meant to support a proposed asset allocation is misleading. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:37 pm

dmilligan , Yes i have charts going out longer.

You are describing nothing more then a standard bucket system.

You have a predetermined amount of years of cash , a bunch of years in bonds and a bucket of equity's. You spend down in order eventually  refilling both from equity's years down the road ..

All studies show spending down equally from all components maintaining  the allocation work out just the same.  kitces has lots of study's on using cash buffers . basically the large cash positions weigh down the up cycles and act as a drag so they are more mentally comforting then any different from  spending down all pieces of the pie equally in good and bad times . .

in the end spending from cash buffers is no better or worse then systematic withdrawals equally from all allocations  in good and bad times
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply