Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
I am wondering if there is a bias built into planning retirement based on historical success probabilities. For example, let's say that you run the numbers and determine that at a 4% WR you will run out of money in only 5% of historical 30 year periods. You decide that this is an acceptable risk and that you need $1 million to retire. Once you hit that number you retire. Even assuming that historical returns are a perfect way of predicting the future, do you really have a 95% chance of success?
My thought is that you don't, because you are unlikely to retire after a period of poor market performance. Assuming your savings contributions are small relative to your overall investment goal, you will only hit a benchmark like $1 million if your investment returns have been positive. Wouldn't this skew your odds so that your real chance of success is lower than a randomly selected 30 year period? For example, you're more likely to hit $1MM in 2007 than in 2009, but your odds of success with the same amount of money are better if you retire in 2009.
My thought is that you don't, because you are unlikely to retire after a period of poor market performance. Assuming your savings contributions are small relative to your overall investment goal, you will only hit a benchmark like $1 million if your investment returns have been positive. Wouldn't this skew your odds so that your real chance of success is lower than a randomly selected 30 year period? For example, you're more likely to hit $1MM in 2007 than in 2009, but your odds of success with the same amount of money are better if you retire in 2009.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
You are right and everybody agrees with you. So what are you gonna do?
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
For early retirees, what you describe is probably especially true. For more regular retirees, they may not choose their date of retirement, so maybe this is less true.
Anyhoo, do you really think it is acceptable to play roulette and have a 5% (or 10% or whatever) chance of ruin? I don't.
Nobody in their right mind should use a fixed withdrawal method when retired. This is simply not adaptive enough (downsides AND upsides). And once you start exploring the idea of variable withdrawal methods, then you start to understand that this SWR metric isn't as significant as many researchers make of it... It is informative, mind you, it but just shouldn't be the cornerstone of a retirement plan. It's simple to compute and to model, but real life is more complicated and human being are more adaptive creatures than that.
Anyhoo, do you really think it is acceptable to play roulette and have a 5% (or 10% or whatever) chance of ruin? I don't.
Nobody in their right mind should use a fixed withdrawal method when retired. This is simply not adaptive enough (downsides AND upsides). And once you start exploring the idea of variable withdrawal methods, then you start to understand that this SWR metric isn't as significant as many researchers make of it... It is informative, mind you, it but just shouldn't be the cornerstone of a retirement plan. It's simple to compute and to model, but real life is more complicated and human being are more adaptive creatures than that.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
siamond is exactly correct. Some years, things will happen and you will need more than 4%. Therefore, you must plan on using less than 4% in other years.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Another good reason to follow bernstein and divide your retirement portfolio into 2 pieces:dspencer wrote:I am wondering if there is a bias built into planning retirement based on historical success probabilities. For example, let's say that you run the numbers and determine that at a 4% WR you will run out of money in only 5% of historical 30 year periods. You decide that this is an acceptable risk and that you need $1 million to retire. Once you hit that number you retire. Even assuming that historical returns are a perfect way of predicting the future, do you really have a 95% chance of success?
My thought is that you don't, because you are unlikely to retire after a period of poor market performance. Assuming your savings contributions are small relative to your overall investment goal, you will only hit a benchmark like $1 million if your investment returns have been positive. Wouldn't this skew your odds so that your real chance of success is lower than a randomly selected 30 year period? For example, you're more likely to hit $1MM in 2007 than in 2009, but your odds of success with the same amount of money are better if you retire in 2009.
I) A liability matching portfolio (LMP) in duration matched tips to guarantee a minimum floor of retirement income.
2) a risk portfolio (rp) that is mostly in stocks, real estate, etc with some dry powder for rebalancing.
Cheers,
Grok
RIP Mr. Bogle.
 TheTimeLord
 Posts: 8781
 Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
I hit my number 2 years ago, that is not the sole determinant of when to retire. Personally, if we enter a Bear market I will probably work several more months until things are working again, checking out at the top of the market would worry me. Thus the reason I am so focused on risk management.dspencer wrote:I am wondering if there is a bias built into planning retirement based on historical success probabilities. For example, let's say that you run the numbers and determine that at a 4% WR you will run out of money in only 5% of historical 30 year periods. You decide that this is an acceptable risk and that you need $1 million to retire. Once you hit that number you retire.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. 
Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
The "4% rule" is more of a guideline than a firm rule.
In looking at it as a firm rule you also have to consider people that retire a year apart but in that year their portfolios go up or down by 10%. It it was a hard rule then one person would get to spend 10% more than the other
In looking at it as a firm rule you also have to consider people that retire a year apart but in that year their portfolios go up or down by 10%. It it was a hard rule then one person would get to spend 10% more than the other
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
I favor the original definition of SWR which would represent a maximum rate that did not fail during any previous historic period (100% success). A definition from Kitces reads:
"The origin of the safe withdrawal rate was actually rather straightforward – it’s simply the initial withdrawal rate that would have sustained inflationadjusted spending in the worst case scenario in (US) history."
So I guess I would quibble with your title, since by introducing a 5% probability of failure, I would not consider the result a SWR (though I know it is common in the literature and simulations). The upshot is that if you wish to retire at the earliest possible moment, then it might be best to make the calculation using the old/100% success rate.
"The origin of the safe withdrawal rate was actually rather straightforward – it’s simply the initial withdrawal rate that would have sustained inflationadjusted spending in the worst case scenario in (US) history."
So I guess I would quibble with your title, since by introducing a 5% probability of failure, I would not consider the result a SWR (though I know it is common in the literature and simulations). The upshot is that if you wish to retire at the earliest possible moment, then it might be best to make the calculation using the old/100% success rate.
I am not a financial professional. My posts are only my opinion on the topic. You need to do your own due diligence and consult with a professional when addressing your financial questions.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
A 0%4% VWR is certainly recognized and seems to come out on top again and again if one has their base costs covered.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
You pose an interesting question, if I am understanding it correctly. I believe you are thinking the market is roughly cyclical and that most people will tend to retire in a bull market, but due to the cyclical nature, a bear is more likely to follow within a short period of the time of your retirement. And if so, we are more likely to encounter sequenceofreturn risk than if we had just picked a random year to retire. I think that is a very valid concern.dspencer wrote:I am wondering if there is a bias built into planning retirement based on historical success probabilities. For example, let's say that you run the numbers and determine that at a 4% WR you will run out of money in only 5% of historical 30 year periods. You decide that this is an acceptable risk and that you need $1 million to retire. Once you hit that number you retire. Even assuming that historical returns are a perfect way of predicting the future, do you really have a 95% chance of success?
One resolution, on the testing front, is to run a Trinity (or Bengen) style analysis using historical data, but rather than start it at year0 of retirement, start it at year0 of saving and run it all the way through accumulation and then through retirement. The back test would have to trigger when retirement took place by some combination of age and whether the magic number has been reached. But since the retirement criteria would more likely be reached in a bull market, the backtest would be testing how we actually do tend to retire and should remove the bias.
The difficulty with this backtest is that now we are talking 30 years of accumulation + 30 years of retirement. It is hard enough to get good stats on just 30 years periods and it will be worse with 60 year test periods. But I believe that would be the proper way to do it. Maybe I will dust off my backtest app and try it.
The resolution on the actual retirement front is, as others have said above, have a flexible plan.
Kolea (pron. kolayuh). Golden plover.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
It isn't exactly what you're suggesting by a 2011 article in the Journal of Financial Planning did something much like this by looking at a 30year accumulation period followed by a 30year retirement period.kolea wrote:One resolution, on the testing front, is to run a Trinity (or Bengen) style analysis using historical data, but rather than start it at year0 of retirement, start it at year0 of saving and run it all the way through accumulation and then through retirement. The back test would have to trigger when retirement took place by some combination of age and whether the magic number has been reached. But since the retirement criteria would more likely be reached in a bull market, the backtest would be testing how we actually do tend to retire and should remove the bias.
Moving right along the chart means "we needed to save more every year in order to reach our retirement goal". You can see that it goes from needing to save around 11% of income up to around 37% of income every single year for one's entire career. You have to save a lot because the market isn't doing great so a lot of the growth of your assets comes from savings rather than capital appreciation.
Moving up along the chart means "once you retire, you're able to withdraw this much money every year". You are able to withdraw more income because the market does well and capital appreciation means your nest egg grows even during retirement.
The line slopes up and the to right showing: when you are in accumulation phase you have to save a lot because the market sucks. But once you retire you're able to withdraw a lot because the market rebounds. And the opposite is also true: if you are able to meet your retirement goals easily, thanks to good returns, then your retirement is more likely to have lower returns.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Probably not enough independent data to be very useful, but it might be interesting to see a chart with X axis = real expected return of a 60/40 portfolio, Y axis = SWR, each retirement year is a point on the chart.
If data is available for other countries, show them on the same chart using different colored points.
Expected return of stocks could be something like 1/CAPE, expected return of bonds… maybe something like nominal rate  prior 5 year annualized inflation, or whatever’s been found to make sense for a time before TIPS.
If data is available for other countries, show them on the same chart using different colored points.
Expected return of stocks could be something like 1/CAPE, expected return of bonds… maybe something like nominal rate  prior 5 year annualized inflation, or whatever’s been found to make sense for a time before TIPS.

 Posts: 8634
 Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:05 pm
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
If you hit your number but then the market drops such that you would be forced to work more, then you never really hit your number.
Your number should be big enough that you can sustain yourself with a conservative portfolio that isn't affected by a stock market drop, or such that a stock market drop doesn't concern you even with an aggressive allocation.
Your number should be big enough that you can sustain yourself with a conservative portfolio that isn't affected by a stock market drop, or such that a stock market drop doesn't concern you even with an aggressive allocation.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
The solution is simple. If the market is going to crash after you retire, don't retire.
More seriously, build flexibility into your plan.
 If the market crashes, be able to cut back on your spending.
 Be willing to earn income after retiring. Earning as little as $10,000 in a year can prevent you from selling equities in a down year.
 Plan your expenses such that you can survive on a 3.5% SWR.
The 4% Rule is just that  a Rule of Thumb. It's a guideline for knowing when you have enough. The math of probabilities is false precision. All the probabilities are based on backtesting. What happened in the past might not happen in the future.
If you have Social Security, or pensions, or other assets, they're not accounted for by the 4% Rule (and they improve your chances.)
It takes a long time to build up the assets to retire. If you get into the ballpark and can early retire, I'd suggest building up a little slack to allow for the unknown before pulling the trigger. If you're forced to retire, then you just have to deal with the hand you're dealt.
More seriously, build flexibility into your plan.
 If the market crashes, be able to cut back on your spending.
 Be willing to earn income after retiring. Earning as little as $10,000 in a year can prevent you from selling equities in a down year.
 Plan your expenses such that you can survive on a 3.5% SWR.
The 4% Rule is just that  a Rule of Thumb. It's a guideline for knowing when you have enough. The math of probabilities is false precision. All the probabilities are based on backtesting. What happened in the past might not happen in the future.
If you have Social Security, or pensions, or other assets, they're not accounted for by the 4% Rule (and they improve your chances.)
It takes a long time to build up the assets to retire. If you get into the ballpark and can early retire, I'd suggest building up a little slack to allow for the unknown before pulling the trigger. If you're forced to retire, then you just have to deal with the hand you're dealt.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Would it be necessary to include 30 years of accumulation? Obviously it depends on savings rates but most people would not be close until the last few years. If you are able to figure anything out let me know.kolea wrote:You pose an interesting question, if I am understanding it correctly. I believe you are thinking the market is roughly cyclical and that most people will tend to retire in a bull market, but due to the cyclical nature, a bear is more likely to follow within a short period of the time of your retirement. And if so, we are more likely to encounter sequenceofreturn risk than if we had just picked a random year to retire. I think that is a very valid concern.dspencer wrote:I am wondering if there is a bias built into planning retirement based on historical success probabilities. For example, let's say that you run the numbers and determine that at a 4% WR you will run out of money in only 5% of historical 30 year periods. You decide that this is an acceptable risk and that you need $1 million to retire. Once you hit that number you retire. Even assuming that historical returns are a perfect way of predicting the future, do you really have a 95% chance of success?
One resolution, on the testing front, is to run a Trinity (or Bengen) style analysis using historical data, but rather than start it at year0 of retirement, start it at year0 of saving and run it all the way through accumulation and then through retirement. The back test would have to trigger when retirement took place by some combination of age and whether the magic number has been reached. But since the retirement criteria would more likely be reached in a bull market, the backtest would be testing how we actually do tend to retire and should remove the bias.
The difficulty with this backtest is that now we are talking 30 years of accumulation + 30 years of retirement. It is hard enough to get good stats on just 30 years periods and it will be worse with 60 year test periods. But I believe that would be the proper way to do it. Maybe I will dust off my backtest app and try it.
The resolution on the actual retirement front is, as others have said above, have a flexible plan.
For me personally it is more curiosity than necessity. My plan is to be flexible but also to have a large buffer of luxury between my planned lifestyle and eating cat food. It seems that some people really do pull the trigger with say $800k invested for an early retirement.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Doesn't that require knowing the future or at least being extremely wealthy? If your number is $1 million then does it mean that if you think your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year then you really need $1.5 million?aristotelian wrote:If you hit your number but then the market drops such that you would be forced to work more, then you never really hit your number.
Your number should be big enough that you can sustain yourself with a conservative portfolio that isn't affected by a stock market drop, or such that a stock market drop doesn't concern you even with an aggressive allocation.
This is the train of thought that led me to question how people are using the simulations. It seems like even a modest drop, for example 10%, would lead to a lot of people realizing that if they reran the calculation that led them to retire with a 95% success rate, they would now see a much lower number. If you now think the chance is 80%, do you go back to work? As many have said, the best approach is being flexible.

 Posts: 8634
 Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:05 pm
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
You don't have to know the future necessarily, but you need to be conservative when estimating your number. If you are wrong, then what you thought was your number was not really your number. The point of a financial independence number is to get to a point that you have at least a reasonable degree of certainty that you are now set for life. If you could not handle a 50% crash, then you are not truly financially independent, and you are taking a calculated risk that the worst case scenario won't happen.dspencer wrote:
Doesn't that require knowing the future or at least being extremely wealthy? If your number is $1 million then does it mean that if you think your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year then you really need $1.5 million?
This is the train of thought that led me to question how people are using the simulations. It seems like even a modest drop, for example 10%, would lead to a lot of people realizing that if they reran the calculation that led them to retire with a 95% success rate, they would now see a much lower number. If you now think the chance is 80%, do you go back to work? As many have said, the best approach is being flexible.
I would say that if you need to invest $1M aggressively in order to sustain it, then your true number is probably higher.
Last edited by aristotelian on Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
If you have a 40/60 allocation, it is most unlikely that your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year. If you have a 30/70 allocation, it is even less likely.dspencer wrote:Doesn't that require knowing the future or at least being extremely wealthy? If your number is $1 million then does it mean that if you think your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year then you really need $1.5 million?
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
True, but if your expected returns are lower due to a conservative AA then you need more money to start with anyway.sport wrote:If you have a 40/60 allocation, it is most unlikely that your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year. If you have a 30/70 allocation, it is even less likely.dspencer wrote:Doesn't that require knowing the future or at least being extremely wealthy? If your number is $1 million then does it mean that if you think your portfolio could decrease by 1/3 in one year then you really need $1.5 million?

 Posts: 8634
 Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:05 pm
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
Exactly. If you can't achieve your income with a conservative allocation, then you have not really hit your number. You have hit a minimum, somewhat arbitrary, number that gives you a good chance.dspencer wrote: True, but if your expected returns are lower due to a conservative AA then you need more money to start with anyway.

 Posts: 5343
 Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:17 pm
 Location: midValley OR
Re: Safe Withdrawal Rate Timing Problem
IMO, if a person has considerable IRA assets, the issues for RMD become larger than a SWR.
Your RMD will exceed a 4% swr in your early 70s and there after. You have to "time" your RMD into a taxable account when your IPS/Otar/Firecal/Monte Carlo says you should only do a SWR amount.
YMMV
Your RMD will exceed a 4% swr in your early 70s and there after. You have to "time" your RMD into a taxable account when your IPS/Otar/Firecal/Monte Carlo says you should only do a SWR amount.
YMMV
Rev012718; 4 Incm stream buckets: SS+pension; dfr'd GLWB VA & FI anntys, by time & $$ laddered; Discretionary; Rentals. LTCi. Own, not asset. Tax TBT%. Early SS. FundRatio (FR) >1.1 67/70yo