Gyroscopic Investing

Tyler , I am not getting a paste option where you drop the code ..it is giving only a copy option where the code should be pasted

One thing I want to mention is if we eliminate the worst of times start dates for a 30 year retirement,which are 1907,1929,1937 ,1965 and 1966 , a safe withdrawal rate would be 6-1/2% on a 60/40

So if we start in 1970 we have eliminated those worst of time dates so a 4% swr would not apply so it is a withdrawal rate but not a safe withdrawal rate as defined by testing against the worst outcomes to date

mathjak107 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:33 pm Tyler , I am not getting a paste option where you drop the code ..it is giving only a copy option where the code should be pasted

Yeah, it requires a keyboard shortcut. I wish I could enable the normal right click paste, but unfortunately that's out of my control.

Copy the text. Double-click the black field. Then type Ctrl+V on a PC (or Cmd+V on a mac). Then press Enter.

mathjak107 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:41 pm One thing I want to mention is if we eliminate the worst of times start dates for a 30 year retirement,which are 1907,1929,1937 ,1965 and 1966 , a safe withdrawal rate would be 6-1/2% on a 60/40

I understand you're referencing Michael Kitces but I believe you're misinterpreting his data. There are many more start dates with WRs well below the 6.5% average than just those 5, including some after 1970 that are very close to the all-time low. I encourage everyone to read this Kitces article (pay close attention to the first chart) and also read my Withdrawal Rates FAQ where I discuss his work.

The average safe withdrawal rate he said is 6.50% when you eliminate those worst dates he found.. ..if you look at his chart the 1970s while bad are worse when you were a retiree starting in 1965/1966 ...so those years were what safemax was also based on .

So while the 1970s were bad it did not meet the terms of being the worst case until you started before in 1965 /1966 because:

1965-1970 had markets on an inflation adjusted basis returning close to zero while you were already spending down for five years into bad inflation ..you needed about 23% more to hold the same purchasing power ...100 in 1965 took 1.23 to buy the same thing by 1970 ...so that is why 1965 1966 were the baseline for bengen..that drain from 1965 to 1970 was harsh.

Then you hit hit 1970 and then have inflation take a dollar and require 1.39 from 1970 to 1975 .....so those in 1965/1966 already faced a big spend down prior to even getting to 1970

So starting already in 1970 would not be the same thing , those dates are what the 4% swr were born from.

1965 to 1995 , 30 years had 1 dollar require 4.84

1970 too 2000 required 4.44

1965-1995 markets returned an inflation adjusted 5.22

1970 to 2000 markets returned inflation adjusted 7.52 % , almost 50 % more




So while the 1970s may have been a horrible time too , the additional spend down from 1965 to 1970 would leave them much more drained then merely starting in 1970.

follow that difference ? You have a great amount of spendown taking place before you even get to 1970 ...

Those first starting in 1970 also had the benefit of 50% higher returns over their 30 years

By the way , the 6.50% average draw makes sense because 90% of all 129 30 year cycles to date ended with more than you started with ,,,67% ended with 2x , 50% ended with 3x what you started with .

That is with 60/40 and counting the time frames starting dates which were much worse than starting in 1970 for spending down in

mathjak107 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:17 am That is with 60/40 and counting the time frames starting dates which were much worse than starting in 1970 for spending down in

I respect your perspective, Mathjak, but the data doesn't support this statement. The difference between starting a withdrawal rates study for a 60/40 portfolio in 1870 and 1970 is easily measurable and is only about 0.3%. And it's not just me that believes that -- it's backed up by calculations from Kitces, Pfau, Bengen, and others. My FAQ link above covers it all. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Back on topic -- I'm happy to talk about alternative withdrawal strategies! My personal favorite for an early/long retirement is to plan for a relatively simple constant percentage withdrawal with a hard spending floor. Basically, instead of setting a fixed spending value when you first retire and adjusting it up for inflation every year (which is what most retirement studies do), multiply your portfolio value by your withdrawal rate every year. Your allowed spending will thus change every year based on the portfolio value, which is nice in terms of taking most advantage of your savings in the good years and cutting back in the bad years. But not every expense (mortgage, etc) can always be trimmed, so to prevent your spending from ever dropping below your critical minimum needs I set a hard spending floor.

The way to model this in the Retirement Spending tool is to go to the Withdrawal Rules section and enter an "x" in every box. Then enter a number in the bottom-right reduction withdrawal limit and watch how it adjusts the floor in the bottom chart. Get everything set to your own portfolio allocation and value, and you can then tinker with the withdrawal rate and the spending floor to get a very good feel for how to get all of those lines to track horizontally rather than down towards zero.

Well there is a reason bengen based it on the 1960’s and any inflation calculator as well as market return calculator clearly shows very different for a retiree starting in 1965 vs 1970 ..
Way greater spend down if you retired in 1965 than 1970 and by the end of the 30 years using bengen data you were broke at 4% and had to go under 4% .....1970 retiree has a balance left.

Bengen used different bonds then the trinity so balance wise they got a bit different results ...bengen found 1965/1966 brought the balance to below zero left at 4% but close enough to call it 4%

As kitces points , out .......”In fact, even when starting with a 4% initial withdrawal rate, less than 10% of the time does the retiree ever finish with less than the starting principal. And it has only happened four times in the ‘modern era’ of markets: for retirees who started a 30-year retirement time horizon in 1929, 1937, 1965, and 1966.

In essence, then, these are the retirement years upon which the 4% rule is based; the whole reason we use the 4% rule is specifically to survive these kinds of ‘worst-case’ unfavorable-sequence-of-return scenarios we’ve seen historically.”

So 1970 was not one of the worst outcome time frames for a retiree spending down if you are trying to find the worst outcome to measure pass or fail


https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-has-the ... al-crisis/

One method I don’t recommend and misinformed people bring it up a lot is using the rmd tables ....

They are NOT designed to provide a consistent income you can count on . Working directly off the balance can have huge income hits in big down years .

It also works the opposite of what you want , providing bigger percentage draws the older you get and less money when you are younger and able to utilize it better

mathjak107 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:31 am So 1970 was not one of the worst outcome time frames for a retiree spending down if you are trying to find the worst outcome to measure pass or fail

I totally agree. I'm not talking about only looking at retirements starting in 1970. I'm talking about looking at every retirement year since 1970. The worst case start year for a 60/40 portfolio since 1970 was 1973. The SWR in that worst case was only 0.3% higher than looking at every start date since 1870. And the list of worst case start years will be very different for different portfolios, so fixating on the Kitces list of 5 bad years for the 60-40 portfolio misses the point.

Rather than continue to rehash the same points over and over, I simply encourage everyone to read the page I created to explain all of these things in detail. I literally can replicate Kitces's calculations and explain how it all works including the error related to both timeframe and data sources. It's a matter of measurable fact, not opinion.

It isn’t as much as looking at the highest swr ...it is the effect of high inflation depleting more resources five years early at way to high of a rate ...according to kitces the retirement was lost in all cases in the first 15 years , not a 30 year span .


So the first 5 years have a pronounced effect and by fifteen years the die is cast as to your outcome ....

I don’t see starting in 1970 close at all to the spendown a 1965 retiree had during those first. 15 years and a 5.50% market return over 30 years vs a 1970 retiree the first fifteen years and a 7.50% market return over 30 years

What I would like to see is where we can start in 1965 with a 4% draw inflation adjusted for the first 15 years of a 30 year retirement ,with 60/40 and compare that to the same retiree starting in 1970 ...then look at the full 30 years

Just using averages does not work because this is all about sequence

Can you run that ?

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:38 pm

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:36 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:29 pm 35/15/0/50

Are we supposed to just guess which asset each of those is or would you care to elaborate?

Usual, stocks/gold/LTTs/cash

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:47 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:38 pm

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:36 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:29 pm 35/15/0/50

Are we supposed to just guess which asset each of those is or would you care to elaborate?

Usual, stocks/gold/LTTs/cash

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

Thanks for your questions.

My version of the PP is entirely in taxable and I plan to draw down the portfolio over the next 10 years.
35/15/0/50 doesn’t deviate too much from the traditional 4x25 HBPP as stocks are really just at the upper 35% limit and gold is at the lower 15% floor.
I sold LTT’s last year (TLT in the 150’s or 160’s) and placed the proceeds in cash after offsetting losses in SCV.
Decided not to purchase them back again.

Whether the above works better or worse than the 4x25 remains to be seen. I still hold a conventional 65/35 AA in retirement accounts with ITT for the fixed income as well as Stable Value funds.

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:46 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:47 pm

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

Thanks for your questions.

My version of the PP is entirely in taxable and I plan to draw down the portfolio over the next 10 years.
35/15/0/50 doesn’t deviate too much from the traditional 4x25 HBPP as stocks are really just at the upper 35% limit and gold is at the lower 15% floor.
I sold LTT’s last year (TLT in the 150’s or 160’s) and placed the proceeds in cash after offsetting losses in SCV.
Decided not to purchase them back again.

Whether the above works better or worse than the 4x25 remains to be seen. I still hold a conventional 65/35 AA in retirement accounts with ITT for the fixed income as well as Stable Value funds.

Thanks for replying. I see where you're coming from now. Also, I didn't really think about it in terms of the 35/15 bands either.
It's a test of discipline to stay true to the system and rebalance into LTT which is what I need to do right about now.

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:41 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:46 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:47 pm

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

Thanks for your questions.

My version of the PP is entirely in taxable and I plan to draw down the portfolio over the next 10 years.
35/15/0/50 doesn’t deviate too much from the traditional 4x25 HBPP as stocks are really just at the upper 35% limit and gold is at the lower 15% floor.
I sold LTT’s last year (TLT in the 150’s or 160’s) and placed the proceeds in cash after offsetting losses in SCV.
Decided not to purchase them back again.

Whether the above works better or worse than the 4x25 remains to be seen. I still hold a conventional 65/35 AA in retirement accounts with ITT for the fixed income as well as Stable Value funds.

Thanks for replying. I see where you're coming from now. Also, I didn't really think about it in terms of the 35/15 bands either.
It's a test of discipline to stay true to the system and rebalance into LTT which is what I need to do right about now.

I just ran my balances and I am (Stocks/Cash/LTT/Gold) ~ 36,22,17,24 - I have to decide if I want to morph into a GB or be strong and rebalance into LTT's!

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:41 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:46 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:47 pm

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

Thanks for your questions.

My version of the PP is entirely in taxable and I plan to draw down the portfolio over the next 10 years.
35/15/0/50 doesn’t deviate too much from the traditional 4x25 HBPP as stocks are really just at the upper 35% limit and gold is at the lower 15% floor.
I sold LTT’s last year (TLT in the 150’s or 160’s) and placed the proceeds in cash after offsetting losses in SCV.
Decided not to purchase them back again.

Whether the above works better or worse than the 4x25 remains to be seen. I still hold a conventional 65/35 AA in retirement accounts with ITT for the fixed income as well as Stable Value funds.

Thanks for replying. I see where you're coming from now. Also, I didn't really think about it in terms of the 35/15 bands either.
It's a test of discipline to stay true to the system and rebalance into LTT which is what I need to do right about now.

I definitely give up downside protection assuming LTT’s zig when stocks zag, but cash is possibly the 2nd best alternative to treasuries and an option to purchase equities at a lower price.

If I held the PP for life I would feel differently, but with a 10 year horizon for the money, having 4-5 years in tax free cash seems appropriate while holding higher equities in retirement accounts.

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:16 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:41 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:46 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:47 pm

Budd,
Obviously your modified PP deviates quite a bit from Harry Browne's formula. I'm interested in your thought process. My guesses for the following:

1. Increase in stocks - because you are bullish on equities and anticipate economic prosperity?
2. Decrease in gold - you don't expect inflation to be a risk?
3. Elimination of Bonds - because interest rates have nowhere to go but up, and deflation is not a risk?
4. Increase in cash - Not sure on this one, maybe stockpiling cash is in preparation for springing on an opportunity if there is a big market change? Because of non-existent cash returns, for you to have 50% allocated, there must be a compelling reason.

Obviously I was using HB's philosophies for my guide. Am I close on any of these?

Thanks for your questions.

My version of the PP is entirely in taxable and I plan to draw down the portfolio over the next 10 years.
35/15/0/50 doesn’t deviate too much from the traditional 4x25 HBPP as stocks are really just at the upper 35% limit and gold is at the lower 15% floor.
I sold LTT’s last year (TLT in the 150’s or 160’s) and placed the proceeds in cash after offsetting losses in SCV.
Decided not to purchase them back again.

Whether the above works better or worse than the 4x25 remains to be seen. I still hold a conventional 65/35 AA in retirement accounts with ITT for the fixed income as well as Stable Value funds.

Thanks for replying. I see where you're coming from now. Also, I didn't really think about it in terms of the 35/15 bands either.
It's a test of discipline to stay true to the system and rebalance into LTT which is what I need to do right about now.

I definitely give up downside protection assuming LTT’s zig when stocks zag, but cash is possibly the 2nd best alternative to treasuries and an option to purchase equities at a lower price.

If I held the PP for life I would feel differently, but with a 10 year horizon for the money, having 4-5 years in tax free cash seems appropriate while holding higher equities in retirement accounts.

Unless you're a believer that we're on the cusp of substantial inflation, maybe in it already. In which case your cash is shrinking in real terms by the day. But if you need it in the near term, it will be there, and that's worth something.
On LTT, again, it's prognosticating, but there are people with war game simulations that say if the Fed ends up with it's back to the wall, we could go into negative interest rates in which case bond yields should drop. Same if a market bubble triggers a deflationary period or a flight to safety.

It's hard; if post 2008 was uncharted monetary territory, I'd say we're much deeper in it now. Listening to Powell last night, maybe they have the recipe for alchemy with modern monetary policy and we're on the cusp of prosperity with controlled inflation like he says.
On the other hand just go over to the forums where the Bitcoin and crypto fanatics live and listen to their talk.

How would you alter a 35/15/0/50 stocks/gold/bonds/cash portfolio if you were only holding for 10 years? The 4x25PP or something else?

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:06 am How would you alter a 35/15/0/50 stocks/gold/bonds/cash portfolio if you were only holding for 10 years? The 4x25PP or something else?

It's a good question, and I don't think I have a good answer, which is why I'm in no position to criticize your allocation.
The answers I'm tempted to give are all a function of my personal predictions of the market, which of course flies in the face of an agnostic portfolio philosophy.

Probably in the end, the decision I would make would be to return to a conventional HBPP or *maybe* a variant like GB. The entire sum of the parts is stable enough even in volatile markets, so if your drawdown is back loaded, maybe you could safely kick the can a little further down the road. When I've looked at it, it is unusual that the PP is locked from withdrawals due to bad timing in the markets. Even when there are big market swings, within 3-6 months, the offestting asset(s) will usually move. This is what happened in 2008. I think it took about 4 months or so for (mostly) bonds and (somewhat) gold to kick in and offset equity losses IIRC.

Not that it would be easy to take your cash and buy mostly Treasuries, some gold, and sell equities right after the Fed chairman basically forecasted a roaring economy in front of us.

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:12 pm

buddtholomew wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:06 am How would you alter a 35/15/0/50 stocks/gold/bonds/cash portfolio if you were only holding for 10 years? The 4x25PP or something else?

It's a good question, and I don't think I have a good answer, which is why I'm in no position to criticize your allocation.
The answers I'm tempted to give are all a function of my personal predictions of the market, which of course flies in the face of an agnostic portfolio philosophy.

Probably in the end, the decision I would make would be to return to a conventional HBPP or *maybe* a variant like GB. The entire sum of the parts is stable enough even in volatile markets, so if your drawdown is back loaded, maybe you could safely kick the can a little further down the road. When I've looked at it, it is unusual that the PP is locked from withdrawals due to bad timing in the markets. Even when there are big market swings, within 3-6 months, the offestting asset(s) will usually move. This is what happened in 2008. I think it took about 4 months or so for (mostly) bonds and (somewhat) gold to kick in and offset equity losses IIRC.

Not that it would be easy to take your cash and buy mostly Treasuries, some gold, and sell equities right after the Fed chairman basically forecasted a roaring economy in front of us.

Thanks for your thoughts.
I have reduced equities somewhat in taxable (70% down to 65%) and still maintain 35% in Intermediate term bonds and SV funds. Looking at the portfolios holistically (taxable and tax deferred) I am heavier in stocks and bonds than the HBPP, but definitely lighter in gold (since I don’t own any in retirement accounts).

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:06 pm I just ran my balances and I am (Stocks/Cash/LTT/Gold) ~ 36,22,17,24 - I have to decide if I want to morph into a GB or be strong and rebalance into LTT's!

You could always rebalance into shorter term bonds if you can't bring yourself to buy LTT's.....
Maybe even a variation on the GoldSmith portfolio, say 25% Gold, 25% Cash, 50% US version of https://www.vanguard.com.au/personal/pr ... s/32047/AU

Just finished re-reading a part of Ben Grahams book. Maybe it would be worth checking out the Inflation chapter

Hal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:17 pm

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:06 pm I just ran my balances and I am (Stocks/Cash/LTT/Gold) ~ 36,22,17,24 - I have to decide if I want to morph into a GB or be strong and rebalance into LTT's!

You could always rebalance into shorter term bonds if you can't bring yourself to buy LTT's.....
Maybe even a variation on the GoldSmith portfolio, say 25% Gold, 25% Cash, 50% US version of https://www.vanguard.com.au/personal/pr ... s/32047/AU

Just finished re-reading a part of Ben Grahams book. Maybe it would be worth checking out the Inflation chapter

Im talking myself into LTT's. If there is a market crash, I will be happy to have them. Anyway still on the fence thanks for the suggestion!

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:39 pm

Hal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:17 pm

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:06 pm I just ran my balances and I am (Stocks/Cash/LTT/Gold) ~ 36,22,17,24 - I have to decide if I want to morph into a GB or be strong and rebalance into LTT's!

You could always rebalance into shorter term bonds if you can't bring yourself to buy LTT's.....
Maybe even a variation on the GoldSmith portfolio, say 25% Gold, 25% Cash, 50% US version of https://www.vanguard.com.au/personal/pr ... s/32047/AU

Just finished re-reading a part of Ben Grahams book. Maybe it would be worth checking out the Inflation chapter

Im talking myself into LTT's. If there is a market crash, I will be happy to have them. Anyway still on the fence thanks for the suggestion!

If the crash is from rising rates and inflation they can sink adding to the woes