I guess Chief Financial Officer Ivan Samstein never learned that "eminence doesn't pay the bills", income does. And how ironic it is that UC has to sell its Center for Research in Security Prices due to its recent expenses outstripping the prices and returns on its security investments. It would be delicious if it wasn't so very sad.
I’m retired without a pension and disagree that “means” should exclude dividends and interest. Both are regular periodic income streams that support my retired lifestyle even though they are not subject to FICA taxes. Three-quarters of my dividends are qualified and therefore not subject to income taxes at my low tax bracket existence. One-quarter of my dividends (money market account interest) is not qualified and therefore is potentially taxable income.
Half of my dividends are reinvested to compound my savings during retirement. The other half is distributed quarterly to my checking account for spending while living within my “means”.
Hi David: I calculate the current year's RMD around January 15th, when I receive the prior year-end balance statements for my 2 IRA accounts. I then withdraw slightly more than the amount required by RMD Table III for two reasons. First, to force myself to spend some retirement money as I'm a long time saver and not a spender. Second, I'm not going to live to "115 and over" on which Table III is based, so I withdraw a little more than Table III requires. To preserve the withdrawn RMD balance, it is deposited into a money market account then transferred monthly in equal amounts of RMD/12 into my checking account. Taking the RMD in a lump sum early in the year avoids the the lower asset base risk you mention if the market sinks during the year. And I presently earn 3.7% interest on the withdrawn RMD funds during the year they are distributed monthly.
If I down vote “Thanks! Great suggestion!” it simply means I do not think the referenced suggestion is great and that I disagree with it, nothing more. I'm not disagreeing with you thanking that person and I am not bullying you in any way. I simply disagree that such person's suggestion is "Great" in substance. Happy New Year!
Greg wrote: "Bogle suggested tweaking the formula by subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage of bonds. By this adjustment to the rule, I would invest 59% bonds and 41% stocks." In the first sentence, I think Greg meant "owning that percentage of stocks" because in the next sentence the resulting 41% in stocks is the difference between 110 and his age of 69. Otherwise, the percentage of less risky bonds would decrease as one got older.
Greg wrote: "Bogle suggested tweaking the formula by subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage of bonds." Using Bogle's formula as stated here would result in an increasingly lower percentage bond ownership as one grew older, thus increasing risky stock ownership with increasing age. I think Greg meant to write: "subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage in stocks" because he then states: "By this adjustment to the rule, I would invest 59% bonds and 41% stocks." 110-69=41, which is the percentage of stocks Greg says he should now own. I think the article should be edited to make this correction.
Comments
I guess Chief Financial Officer Ivan Samstein never learned that "eminence doesn't pay the bills", income does. And how ironic it is that UC has to sell its Center for Research in Security Prices due to its recent expenses outstripping the prices and returns on its security investments. It would be delicious if it wasn't so very sad.
Post: Endowment Lessons
Link to comment from February 21, 2026
Thank you, Richard, for the clarification. We're in the same stream.
Post: What does ”means” mean?
Link to comment from February 15, 2026
I’m retired without a pension and disagree that “means” should exclude dividends and interest. Both are regular periodic income streams that support my retired lifestyle even though they are not subject to FICA taxes. Three-quarters of my dividends are qualified and therefore not subject to income taxes at my low tax bracket existence. One-quarter of my dividends (money market account interest) is not qualified and therefore is potentially taxable income. Half of my dividends are reinvested to compound my savings during retirement. The other half is distributed quarterly to my checking account for spending while living within my “means”.
Post: What does ”means” mean?
Link to comment from February 14, 2026
Hi David: I calculate the current year's RMD around January 15th, when I receive the prior year-end balance statements for my 2 IRA accounts. I then withdraw slightly more than the amount required by RMD Table III for two reasons. First, to force myself to spend some retirement money as I'm a long time saver and not a spender. Second, I'm not going to live to "115 and over" on which Table III is based, so I withdraw a little more than Table III requires. To preserve the withdrawn RMD balance, it is deposited into a money market account then transferred monthly in equal amounts of RMD/12 into my checking account. Taking the RMD in a lump sum early in the year avoids the the lower asset base risk you mention if the market sinks during the year. And I presently earn 3.7% interest on the withdrawn RMD funds during the year they are distributed monthly.
Post: RMDs, account withdrawals, 4% simplified- MAYBE?
Link to comment from January 17, 2026
If I down vote “Thanks! Great suggestion!” it simply means I do not think the referenced suggestion is great and that I disagree with it, nothing more. I'm not disagreeing with you thanking that person and I am not bullying you in any way. I simply disagree that such person's suggestion is "Great" in substance. Happy New Year!
Post: The “Mean Girls”/Junior High Bullies at HumbleDollar
Link to comment from January 10, 2026
Greg wrote: "Bogle suggested tweaking the formula by subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage of bonds. By this adjustment to the rule, I would invest 59% bonds and 41% stocks." In the first sentence, I think Greg meant "owning that percentage of stocks" because in the next sentence the resulting 41% in stocks is the difference between 110 and his age of 69. Otherwise, the percentage of less risky bonds would decrease as one got older.
Post: Not Staying the Course
Link to comment from September 20, 2025
Greg wrote: "Bogle suggested tweaking the formula by subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage of bonds." Using Bogle's formula as stated here would result in an increasingly lower percentage bond ownership as one grew older, thus increasing risky stock ownership with increasing age. I think Greg meant to write: "subtracting your age from 110 and owning that percentage in stocks" because he then states: "By this adjustment to the rule, I would invest 59% bonds and 41% stocks." 110-69=41, which is the percentage of stocks Greg says he should now own. I think the article should be edited to make this correction.
Post: Not Staying the Course
Link to comment from September 20, 2025