AUTHOR: bbbobbins on 10/11/2024 FIRST: Ben Rodriguez on 10/11/2024 | RECENT: Billy McKelvy on 10/15/2024
Comments
Strikes me it's a choice. Commercial reality means that there will be no end of businesses willing to run camps, extracurricular coaching, tournaments, travel competition. It's also within the power of parents to say no. Idea of travel teams seems ludicrous for U12s and barely makes much sense unless we're really talking elite performance for U18s. Acknowledged that some minority sports may by geographic necessity have greater needs e.g. skiing. But for mass participation like baseball/softball/basketball/football/soccer/swimming/track n field? Seems unnecessary. The whole point of soccer is that it is a relatively simple game that can be played anywhere where there is a bit of passably flat land. Hence global popularity. Sure sports teach plenty of lifeskills but IME those lessons can be learnt being ground into an icy December puddle within 10 miles of home just as easily as on the back of a 14 hour return coach trip via a cheap Holiday Inn stay.
I think the "get up early" thing is one of those self perpetuating myths. One that doesn't reflect the variability in personal body clocks. It becomes easier to attach a halo to other early birds if you're an early bird.
I usually laugh at such places because I imagine the immense ballache in keeping up the maintenance and admin (and the payroll and HR management of the staff hired to do such things), the loss of privacy etc etc. I'd rather go see nice houses and gardens etc with my National Trust card and know none of the "stuff" is my problem.
But you're in the wrong place if you're trying to be this prophet preaching this mythical "simple consistent guide" as people here have read widely, done their own modelling and testing, understand maths and stats and have their own views on risk. Not that I believe with investment portfolios being highly variable in performance, taxes being what they are and subject to tampering and any number of convoluted rules wrappers anything can be ever "simple". I see 4 broad categories of people. 1) Those who never have much of a portfolio to need to manage drawdown. They'll be living on SS, pension or further earnings as best as they can. 2) Those who do not do anything to take control of a portfolio. They might over or under draw. In some cases they might not even know how much they have stashed (or had stashed for them by benefactors). Generally they'll be as prudent or profligate as they've always been in their lives. 3) Those who act following advice of an advisor. This is bread and butter for Financial planners and PFAs. A good one should ensure that individuals don't need to worry (and perhaps encourage them to spend upwards and not always make the safety first call). But obviously this comes at a price. 4) Those who are confident making their own strategy and flexing decisions within that. This is either through education or having sufficient surplus/excess assets that they can't really stuff it up. You sound like you're aspiring to help Cat 2 people. But by projecting your own neuroses and biases on to situations it seems unlikely you will be the great prophet.
Well we know you 'd be ill suited to anything other than a fixed annuity because of what you have said in the past. But your temperament doesn't speak for everyone who by necessity has to determine and adjust to their own withdrawal strategy. From my perspective it seems like it would be nuts to keep drawing X each month regardless of need, paying tax on drawdown and having to do additional transactions to park it elsewhere. I'd rather (unless there were particular tax advantages I was trying to avail of) have it continuing to accrue and build my "buffer" in the principal. Again, we know you wouldn't do this because it might involve having to track said buffer in say that most evil of things, a spreadsheet. I think your opinion of retirees in general is rather patronising. For everyone who can only budget by receiving an amount in their checking account each month and hoping it lasts the month I hope there are at least some who draw according more to their needs rather than blindly. And yes that sometimes means being careful to define "needs" - I do not see a desire to replace multiple white goods because of a failure in one item as a "need". And as for not being comfortable in adjusting withdrawal strategy based on market performance - intuitively this may seem sensible on the what goes up might come down principle. But it's forgetting that the 4% rule is statistically predicated on worst case scenarios i.e. it should hold from any point in time even if the worst sequence of returns known in history occurs. Thus if your answer at T0 is $1m*4% = 40k and at T2 your portfolio happens to be worth $1.2m you could theoretically rebase to 48k and reset the clock.
The US certainly is a country characterised by excess. In part it's in the DNA as furthering the "American Dream" and as the engine of the economic growth model. But it almost certainly doesn't make individuals happy - the problem with keeping up with the Joneses is that there is always a wealthier clique to compare oneself negatively to.
Focus on the concept, nothing to do with the source of the question. . You either agree with the issue raised or you disagree.
I answered your question just not in the way you like so now you're sea-lioning again. Perhaps not even sea-lioning given the baldness of your command.
Do people stick with a steady withdrawal percentage or not and if they do not are they putting their income plan at risk. That’s it, that the question.
And you'll have to do your own research on that. I've given reasons why it may or may not matter. FWIW my belief is that anyone who has the discipline to accrue a significant portfolio such that the SWR is going to serve them well also probably has the nouse to maintain a separate emergency "pot" or to flex their spending below the "rule" to give such headroom. I'd suspect that more people using the "rule" consciously underdraw on average than overdraw. But I think you're really scratching for reasons to crap from height on the 4% rule as something that doesn't fit with your worldview. It's never going to be the complete answer to retirement as it does nothing about the expenditure side (budgeting, essentials vs discretionary, capital vs revenue). Reality is that most of those fortunate to be choosing discretionary retirement (as opposed to forced) also are capable of turning off or on elements of expenditure through their retirement as other needs emerge.
If you are going to reference random YouTube videos then the value of such is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Yes the 4%SWR assumes steady withdrawal plus inflation. No it doesn't account for additional lump sum withdrawals because they could be anything. They do not necessarily put the strategy in jeopardy because their impact is very much related to quantum and timing. A major house rebuild in year one might, an extra $10k after years of strong equity growth probably wouldn't have any impact at all. But to ask these questions betrays that you don't understand the purpose of the rule. It's not to set in stone the "income" a person receives. It's to provide a sensible guardrail to the amount they can safely draw without fear of running out of money over a 30 year period. The debate is usually over whether it is too conservative given the way markets have historically performed and thus leaves too much unenjoyed or conversely how resilient it is to black swan downturns.
I'd be hesitant with geo-arbitrage as a back up plan. Gets harder the older you become. Within the US possibly. I've seen too many people who've geo-arbitraged from UK to Spain and Portugal even pre-retirement end up returning in a worse real estate position driven by health and proximity to family support.
That's one approach. It's been explained before that as it is the most secure inflation protected income someone will get there are ample reasons to seek to maximise it through deferral as a longevity hedge. There's no "risk" in delaying SS income other than in an early death where one may not have had payback, but that rather puts financial considerations in the shade.
Comments
Strikes me it's a choice. Commercial reality means that there will be no end of businesses willing to run camps, extracurricular coaching, tournaments, travel competition. It's also within the power of parents to say no. Idea of travel teams seems ludicrous for U12s and barely makes much sense unless we're really talking elite performance for U18s. Acknowledged that some minority sports may by geographic necessity have greater needs e.g. skiing. But for mass participation like baseball/softball/basketball/football/soccer/swimming/track n field? Seems unnecessary. The whole point of soccer is that it is a relatively simple game that can be played anywhere where there is a bit of passably flat land. Hence global popularity. Sure sports teach plenty of lifeskills but IME those lessons can be learnt being ground into an icy December puddle within 10 miles of home just as easily as on the back of a 14 hour return coach trip via a cheap Holiday Inn stay.
Post: Throw, hit or kick … it all add$ up
Link to comment from September 29, 2025
I think the "get up early" thing is one of those self perpetuating myths. One that doesn't reflect the variability in personal body clocks. It becomes easier to attach a halo to other early birds if you're an early bird.
Post: Traits of “successful” people
Link to comment from September 29, 2025
I usually laugh at such places because I imagine the immense ballache in keeping up the maintenance and admin (and the payroll and HR management of the staff hired to do such things), the loss of privacy etc etc. I'd rather go see nice houses and gardens etc with my National Trust card and know none of the "stuff" is my problem.
Post: The 1% Club: Our Unnoticed Wealth
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
But you're in the wrong place if you're trying to be this prophet preaching this mythical "simple consistent guide" as people here have read widely, done their own modelling and testing, understand maths and stats and have their own views on risk. Not that I believe with investment portfolios being highly variable in performance, taxes being what they are and subject to tampering and any number of convoluted rules wrappers anything can be ever "simple". I see 4 broad categories of people. 1) Those who never have much of a portfolio to need to manage drawdown. They'll be living on SS, pension or further earnings as best as they can. 2) Those who do not do anything to take control of a portfolio. They might over or under draw. In some cases they might not even know how much they have stashed (or had stashed for them by benefactors). Generally they'll be as prudent or profligate as they've always been in their lives. 3) Those who act following advice of an advisor. This is bread and butter for Financial planners and PFAs. A good one should ensure that individuals don't need to worry (and perhaps encourage them to spend upwards and not always make the safety first call). But obviously this comes at a price. 4) Those who are confident making their own strategy and flexing decisions within that. This is either through education or having sufficient surplus/excess assets that they can't really stuff it up. You sound like you're aspiring to help Cat 2 people. But by projecting your own neuroses and biases on to situations it seems unlikely you will be the great prophet.
Post: I’m confused about the 4% (or any %) withdrawal strategy. Do I have it wrong?
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
Well we know you 'd be ill suited to anything other than a fixed annuity because of what you have said in the past. But your temperament doesn't speak for everyone who by necessity has to determine and adjust to their own withdrawal strategy. From my perspective it seems like it would be nuts to keep drawing X each month regardless of need, paying tax on drawdown and having to do additional transactions to park it elsewhere. I'd rather (unless there were particular tax advantages I was trying to avail of) have it continuing to accrue and build my "buffer" in the principal. Again, we know you wouldn't do this because it might involve having to track said buffer in say that most evil of things, a spreadsheet. I think your opinion of retirees in general is rather patronising. For everyone who can only budget by receiving an amount in their checking account each month and hoping it lasts the month I hope there are at least some who draw according more to their needs rather than blindly. And yes that sometimes means being careful to define "needs" - I do not see a desire to replace multiple white goods because of a failure in one item as a "need". And as for not being comfortable in adjusting withdrawal strategy based on market performance - intuitively this may seem sensible on the what goes up might come down principle. But it's forgetting that the 4% rule is statistically predicated on worst case scenarios i.e. it should hold from any point in time even if the worst sequence of returns known in history occurs. Thus if your answer at T0 is $1m*4% = 40k and at T2 your portfolio happens to be worth $1.2m you could theoretically rebase to 48k and reset the clock.
Post: I’m confused about the 4% (or any %) withdrawal strategy. Do I have it wrong?
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
The US certainly is a country characterised by excess. In part it's in the DNA as furthering the "American Dream" and as the engine of the economic growth model. But it almost certainly doesn't make individuals happy - the problem with keeping up with the Joneses is that there is always a wealthier clique to compare oneself negatively to.
Post: The 1% Club: Our Unnoticed Wealth
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
Post: I’m confused about the 4% (or any %) withdrawal strategy. Do I have it wrong?
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
If you are going to reference random YouTube videos then the value of such is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Yes the 4%SWR assumes steady withdrawal plus inflation. No it doesn't account for additional lump sum withdrawals because they could be anything. They do not necessarily put the strategy in jeopardy because their impact is very much related to quantum and timing. A major house rebuild in year one might, an extra $10k after years of strong equity growth probably wouldn't have any impact at all. But to ask these questions betrays that you don't understand the purpose of the rule. It's not to set in stone the "income" a person receives. It's to provide a sensible guardrail to the amount they can safely draw without fear of running out of money over a 30 year period. The debate is usually over whether it is too conservative given the way markets have historically performed and thus leaves too much unenjoyed or conversely how resilient it is to black swan downturns.
Post: I’m confused about the 4% (or any %) withdrawal strategy. Do I have it wrong?
Link to comment from September 26, 2025
I'd be hesitant with geo-arbitrage as a back up plan. Gets harder the older you become. Within the US possibly. I've seen too many people who've geo-arbitraged from UK to Spain and Portugal even pre-retirement end up returning in a worse real estate position driven by health and proximity to family support.
Post: Nick Maggiulli’s take on Bergen’s 4.7 or 5% Withdrawal Rate
Link to comment from September 25, 2025
That's one approach. It's been explained before that as it is the most secure inflation protected income someone will get there are ample reasons to seek to maximise it through deferral as a longevity hedge. There's no "risk" in delaying SS income other than in an early death where one may not have had payback, but that rather puts financial considerations in the shade.
Post: Nick Maggiulli’s take on Bergen’s 4.7 or 5% Withdrawal Rate
Link to comment from September 25, 2025